LIBRARY  OF   THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Section 


THE   DAY 


OF 


OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 


THURSDAY  — NOT  FRIDAY. 


JUL  22  1924 


CRITICAL    EXAMINATION 


OF  THE 


©uestton  in  Eegarti  to  tije  &tme 

OF 

OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION: 


THAT  HE  WAS  CRUCIFIED  ON  THURSDAY,  THE 

FOURTEENTH    DAY    OF    THE    JEWISH 

MONTH   NISAN,   A.D.  30. 


BY 

V 
REV.  J.  K.  ALDRICH, 

PASTOR  OP  THE  PIRST  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH,  WELLPLEET,  MASS. 

LATELY  OP  THE  OLIVE   STREET    (PILGRIM)    CONGREGATIONAL 

CHURCH,  NASHUA,  N.H. 


BOSTON 

1882. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1881,  by 

REV.  J.  K.  ALDRICH, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 


All  rights  reserved. 


Printed  by  Rand,  Avery,  6r*  Co.,  Boston. 


Co  mi 

WHO  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  BIBLE  IS  THE  INFALLIBLE 

RECORD  OF  THE  DIVINE  TESTIMONY,  AND  ARE 

INTERESTED  IN  ITS  EXPOSITION, 


2Tf)is  Folume 


IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED. 


PEEFAOE. 


This  book  is  the  result  of  careful  study,  and 
fills  a  place  heretofore  unoccupied.  It  is  written 
to  correct  the  great  misapprehension  of  the  West- 
ern church,  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant,  in 
regard  to  the  day  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion. 

The  false  theory  that  He  was  crucified  on 
Friday,  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  Jewish  month 
Nisan,  seriously  calls  in  question  the  veracity  and 
credibility  of  the  Word  of  God ;  and  hence  the 
importance  of  correcting  it.  And  as  an  investi- 
gation of  the  Scriptures  and  other  sources  has 
convinced  me  that  it  is  a  mistaken  one,  erroneous 
in  itself,  and  fraught  with  irreconcilable  difficul- 
ties, a  sense  of  duty  impels  me  to  give  the  result 
to  the  public. 

I  have  followed  no  preconceived  theory.  My 
only  desire  has  been  to  determine  the  question 
of  fact;  to  settle  in  regard  to  it,  the  inquiry, 
"  What  is  truth  ? "  I  have  endeavored  to  dis- 
cuss it  fairly,  and  in  every  instance  have  appealed 


8  PREFACE. 

uto  the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  The  book, 
therefore,  accords  with  the  declarations  of  the 
inspired  volume;  shows  that  the  Scripture  narra- 
tive in  regard  to  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  is  liter- 
ally true,  and  removes  the  apparent  discrepancy 
between  John  and  the  other  evangelists. 

It  asserts,  not  a  theory,  but  a  fact,  and  conse- 
quently is  irrefutable. 

I  send  it  on  its  mission,  believing  that  it  will 
commend  itself  to  all  who  are  interested  in  the 
exposition  of  Bible  truth. 

J.   K.   A. 


CONTENTS. 


i. 

PAGE 

Introductory 15-28 

The  day  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  a  subject  of 
controversy  from  the  days  of  the  Christian 
Fathers 15-17 

The  Eastern  and  Western  church  divided  on  this 
question 17,  18 

The  question  still  unsettled 18,  19 

Why  the  Protestant  church  has  held  to  the  theory 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Friday      .        .  19 

The  theory  an  erroneous  one,  as  shown  by  its  results,    20-22 

The  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  removes 
every  difficulty 22,  23 

The  false  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
Friday  presents  insuperable  difficulties.        .        .    23,24 

On  account  of  it,  the  larger  portion  of  modern 
critics  have  rejected  certain  portions  of  the 
Scripture  narrative 24-26 

This  is  to  assume  that  the  Scriptures  were  not 
written  under  a  divine  inspiration       ...  26 

The  Scriptures  what  they  purport  to  be,  and  con- 
tain no  real,  but  only  apparent,  difficulties  .        .    26,  27 

It  is  not  wise  to  persist  in  the  vain  endeavor  to 

square  the  Word  of  God  to  a  mistaken  theory      .    27,  28 

The  question  an  important  one         ....  28 

9 


10  CONTENTS. 

H. 

PACK 

Friday,  in  the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  cru- 
cified,  THE    FIFTEENTH    DAY    OF  THE    MONTH 

Nisan 31-67 

This  is  the  belief  of  the  great  majority  of  the  West- 
ern church 31 

It  is  not  possible  to  prove  that  Friday,  in  the  year 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  was  not  the  15th 
of  Nisan 31-34 

Assertions  of  distinguished  writers  in  regard  to  it  .    34-37 

That  Friday  was  the  15th  of  Nisan  is  the  general 
opinion  of  the  church 37,  38 

It  is  confirmed  by  the  use  of  the  plural  oa(3(3aTuv  in 
Matt,  xxviii.  1        .        .        .        .     '  .        .        .    38-45 

Another  proof  found  in  our  Saviour's  arrival  at 
Bethany 45-52 

An  examination  of  the  "  two  days  before  the  Pass- 
over" brings  us  to  the  same  conclusion        .        .    52-56 

The  assumption  that  Friday  was  the  14th  has  no 
evidence  in  its  favor 56,  57 

Conclusions 57 

HI. 

Our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th  of  Ni- 
san   61-113 

Christ  the  great  Antitype  of  the  Passover       .        .  61,  62 

Like  the  paschal  lamb,  He  was  without  blemish      .  62 

Slain  at  the  time  of  the  Passover      ....  62 
Set  apart  for  sacrifice,  as  was  the  paschal  lamb,  on 

the  tenth  day 62-68 

Died  at  the  same  hour  in  the  day  that  the  paschal 

lamb  was  sacrificed  "  between  the  evenings  "       .  68-70 


CONTENTS.  11 

PAGE 

The  divine  command  in  regard  to  the  paschal 
lamb,  that  "  not  a  bone  of  it  should  be  broken," 
fulfilled  at  the  crucifixion 70 

The  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb  ceased  under 
the  Law  when  Christ  the  great  sacrifice  was 
offered .  71 

That  Christ  died  as  "our  Passover,"  and  "rose 
again  for  our  justification,"  typified  in  the 
"Wave  Offering" 71-79 

Conclusions  drawn  from  the  foregoing  .        .        .       79,  80 

The  Law  fulfilled  in  Christ's  death       .        .        .        80-86 

Testimony  of  the  Jews  that  our  Saviour  died  on 
the  14th  of  Nisan 86-89 

Testimony  of  the  Greek  church,  Christian  Fa- 
thers, and  of  distinguished  commentators        .       90,  91 

His  hurried  burial  a  proof  that  He  was  crucified 
on  the  14th 91 

Our  Saviour  could  not  have  been  crucified  on  the 
15th,  because  it  was  the  "High  Sabbath"  of 
the  festival 91-102 

Luke  xxiii.  26  shows  that  the  15th  cannot  have 
been  the  day  on  which  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied        102,  103 

He  cannot  have  been  crucified  on  the  15th,  be- 
cause He  was  crucified  on  the  "  day  of  prepara- 
tion"         103-111 

Mark  xiv.  1,  2,  an  evidence  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  the  14th Ill,  112 

Since  Friday  was  the  15th,  and  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  the  14th,  it  follows  that  He  was 
crucified  on  Thursday 112,  113 


12  CONTENTS. 

IV. 

PAGE 

Our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  makes 
Him  to  have  lain  in  the  grave  three 
nights,  and  to  have  risen  on  the  third 
day,  according  to  the  scriptures   .       .    117-138 

The  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday  contradicts  His  assertions  that  He 
should  be  "  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth,"  and  that  He  should  "rise 
again  the  third  day  " 117,  118 

The  effort  of  commentators  to  explain  this,  futile,    118-125 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Friday,  He 
could  have  lain  in  the  grave  but  two  nights  and 
over  one  day 125-137 

Our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  satisfies 
every  condition 137, 138 


V. 

Our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  ac- 
counts for  Matthew's  use  of  the  plural 
2ABBA.TQN 141 


VI. 

Our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  ex- 
plains   THE    "SIX    DAYS"    AND    THE    "  TWO 

days  before  the  Passover"  consistently 

WITH  THE  GENERAL  BELIEF  OF  THE  CHURCH 
AND  THE  GENERALLY  EXPRESSED  OPINION 
OF  COMMENTATORS  IN  REGARD  TO  THEM  .      145-147 


CONTENTS.  13 


VII. 


Our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  makes 
His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  to 
have  been  on  sunday,  called  "  palm 
Sunday,"  according  to  the  general  be- 
lief OF  THE  CHURCH 151-153 

vm 

Our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  ac- 
counts     FOR     THE      OCCUPATION      OF     THE 

several  days  of  passion  week,  and 
removes  the  concealment  which  hangs 
over  Wednesday 157-159 

IX. 

The  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour  on  Thursday 
reconciles  the  discrepancy  between 
John  and  the  other  evangelists,  and 
removes  the  apparent  contradiction  in 
his  own  statements 163-233 

The  discrepancy 163-174 

It  presents  a  grave  difficulty 174-177 

The  ways  in  which  commentators  have  attempted 

to  reconcile  the  discrepancy  ....  177,  178 
Our  Saviour  did  not  eat  a  Supper  merely,  with 

His  disciples,  but  the  Passover  ....  178-185 
He  did  not  eat  it  at  the  same  time  that  the  Jews 

ate  it 186-191 

He  ate  the  prescribed  Passover  with  His  disciples, 

not  a  different  one 191-194 


14  CONTENTS. 


On  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday,  His  eating  the  Passover  with  His  dis- 
ciples, but  not  at  the  time  when  the  Jews  ate 
it,  does  not  clear  up  the  difficulty      .        .        .     194-197 

He  ate  the  Passover  with  His  disciples  on  Wednes- 
day evening,  which,  according  to  the  true  ap- 
pearance of  the  moon,  was  the  beginning  of  the 
15th  of  Nisan 197-207 

Why  the  Jews  did  not  observe  the  Passover  at  the 
same  time 207-215 

The  statements  of  John  harmonize  with  those  of 
the  other  evangelists 215-217 

Our  Saviour's  observing  the  Passover  on  Wednes- 
day evening  allows  of  His  strict  compliance 
with  the  Law,  and  fulfils  the  requirement  in 
regard  to  the  Passover  Sacrifice  ....    217,  218 

Objections  answered 218-232 

Facts  established 232,233 


X. 

Oue  Savioub  crucified  A.D.  30     ...  237-258 

This  is  the  general  opinion 237 

It  confirms  the  argument  in  regard  to  Thursday 

as  being  the  day  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion    .    237,  238 

Evidence  in  its  favor 238-257 

The  statement  confirmed  by  the  most  critical 

commentators      .......    257, 258 


THE   DAT  OF   OUR   SAVIOUR'S 
CRUCIFIXION. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


The  Day  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  has 
been  a  subject  of  controversy  from  the  days 
of  the  Christian  Fathers.  So  diverse  were 
their  opinions  concerning  it,  that  the  "  Bib- 
lical, Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Cyclo- 
paedia," M'Clintock  and  Strong,  says,  under 
the  head  of  "Passover,"  vol.  vii.  p.  747,  "It 
seems  that  nothing  whatever  can  be  safely 
inferred  from  them  respecting  the  day  of  the 
month  of  the  Supper  or  the  Crucifixion."  And 
Dr.  Smith,  in  his  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible," 
revised  and  edited  by  Professor  Hackett,  vol. 
in.  p.  2352,  says,  "  Not  much  use  can  be 
made,  in  the  controversy,  of  the  testimony  of 
the  Fathers." 

15 


16      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen,  appeal 
to  the  Gospel  of  John  as  deciding  in  favor  of 
onr  Saviour's  having  eaten  the  Supper  with 
His  disciples  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  the 
month  Nisan..  St.  Augustine  was  in  favor  of 
the  fourteenth.  While  Chrysostom  expressed 
himself  doubtfully  between  the  two. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  a  controversy  on 
this  question  has  existed  from  a  very  early 
period  in  the  history  of  the  church. 

It  is  claimed  also,  that  differences  of  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  Supper,  and  of 
our  Saviour's  crucifixion,  were  held  at  so 
early  a  period,  that  the  evidence,  even  from 
rabbinical  authorities,  cannot  be  considered 
conclusive  (see  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible^  vol  Hi.  p.  2352.  Also  "  Biblical,  Theo- 
logical, and  Ecclesiastical  Cyclopaedia?  M'Clin- 
tock  and  Strong,  vol.  vii.  p.  747). 

If  Clement  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  second  century  after  Christ, 
and  Origen  of  the  third,  and  St.  Augustine 
and  Chrysostom  of  the  fourth,  held  different 
opinions  concerning  it,  it  must   be    admitted 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      17 

that  the  commonly  received  opinion  of  the 
Western  church  is  liable  to  be  a  mistaken 
one. 

Further,  the  question  has  been  a  contro- 
verted one  from  the  days  of  the  Fathers  until 
now;  the  majority  of  the  Western  church 
maintaining  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
the  15th  of  Nisan,  and  Dr.  Gustave  Seyffarth, 
Erasmus,  Grotius,  Suicer,  Carpzov,  Lucke. 
Ideler,  Tittman,  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Neander, 
Tischendorf,  Winer,  Ebrard,  Martin  Luther, 
Alford,  Ellicott,  and  others,  holding  that  he 
was  crucified  on  the  14th.1 

"  The  chronological  difficulty  concerning 
the  true  date  of  Christ's  death,  and  the  true 
character  of  His  last  Supper,  divides  the 
Greek  and  Latin  church,  but  was  not  made 
an  article  of  faith  in  either.  The  Greek 
writers  generally  hold  that  Christ,  as  the  true 
paschal  lamb,  was  slain  at  the  hour  appointed 
for  the  sacrifice  of  the  Passover,  on  the  14th 
of  Nisan ;  and  hence  the  Greek  church  uses 
leavened  bread  in  the  Eucharist. 

"  The  Latin  church,  using  unleavened  bread 

1  See  Appendix, 


18      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

in  the  Eucharist,  assumes  that  Christ  himself 
used  it  at  the  institution  of  this  ordinance, 
and  that  He  ate  therefore  the  true  paschal 
Supper  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  — 
i.e.,  the  14th  of  Nisan,  —  and  died  on  the  day 
following,"  the  15th  [Foot-notes  in  Lange  on 
Matthew,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  454). 

From  this  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  Greek 
and  the  Latin  church  are  still  divided  on  this 
question;  the  Greek  church  believing  that 
Christ  was  crucified  on  the  14th,  and  the 
Latin  church  that  He  was  crucified  on  the 
15th,  of  Nisan. 

The  fact,  then,  is  undeniable,  that  it  has 
been  a  controverted  question  from  the  days  of 
the  early  Christian  Fathers  until  the  present 
day,  and  that  it  is  still  unsettled. 

This  will  be  seen  also  from  the  following  in 
regard  to  the  Day  of  Pentecost :  — 

"  The  question  on  what  day  of  the  week 
this  Pentecost  fell"  (referring  to  the  Pente- 
cost which  followed  the  Saviour's  crucifixion, 
recorded  in  Acts  ii.  1),  "  must  of  course  be 
determined  by  the  mode  in  which  the  doubt 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.      19 

is  solved  regarding  the  day  on  which  the  last 
Supper  was  eaten  (Passover,  III.).  If  it  was 
the  legal  paschal  supper  on  the  14th  of  Nisan, 
and  the  Sabbath  during  which  our  Lord  lay  in 
the  grave  was  the  day  of  the  omer,  Pentecost 
must  have  followed  on  the  Sabbath.  But  if 
the  Supper  was  eaten  on  the  13th,  and  He 
was  crucified  on  the  14th,  the  Sunday  of  the 
resurrection  must  have  been  the  day  of  the 
omer ;  and  Pentecost  must  have  occurred  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week  "  (Smith's  "  Diction- 
ary of  the  Bible"  vol.  Hi.  p.  2433). 

From  the  above,  published  in  1871,  and 
regarded  by  scholars  as  of  high  authority,  it 
will  be  perceived  that  the  whole  matter  is  left 
entirely  unsettled.  Nothing  is  determined  in 
regard  either  to  the  day  of  the  Supper,  or  of 
the  crucifixion,  and  consequently  in  regard  to 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  That  the  Day  of  the 
Saviour's  crucifixion  is  still  a  subject  of  con- 
troversy, is  therefore  beyond  question. 

The  Protestant  church  has  generally  held 
to  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday,  because  this  was  the  theory  that 


20      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

had  been  adopted  by  the  Latin  chnrch,  from 
the  bosom  of  which  it  came.  According  to 
the  Protestant  belief,  the  Latin  or  Romish 
church  cherishes  the  gravest  errors  in  many 
points  of  Christian  doctrine;  and  in  holding 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Friday,  the 
15th  of  the  month  Nisan,  it  has  erred  in  re- 
gard to  the  fact.  Martin  Luther,  the  great 
Protestant  Reformer,  believed  that  our  Lord 
was  crucified  on  the  14th ;  and  why  shall  we 
not  follow  him  in  this,  as  well  as  in  points  of 
doctrine  ? 

The  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday  leads  to  the  following  inevitable 
results,  and  is  therefore  manifestly  erroneous. 
On  this  theory,  — 

1.  He  cannot  have  been  crucified  on  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan,  when  the 
paschal  lamb,  of  which  He  was  the  great 
Antitype,  was  killed,  but  must  have  been 
crucified  on  the  fifteenth,  the  day  when  the 
Passover  was  eaten,  —  the  "high  Sabbath" 
of  the  festival.  He  cannot  have  been  cruci- 
fied, as  stated  by  the  evangelists,  on  the  "  day 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      21 

of  preparation,"  but  must  have  been  crucified 
on  the  day  following,  —  the  "  day  of  holy  con- 
vocation." 

2.  He  can  have  lain  in  the  grave  only  on 
Saturday  and  a  part  of  Sunday  (see  chap.  iv. 
pp.  125-138),  and  but  two  nights,  —  Friday 
night  and  Saturday  night,  —  and  cannot  be 
said  to  have  been  three  nights  in  the  grave, 
and  to  have  risen  on  the  third  day.  He  can 
-have  been  in  the  grave  but  two  nights  instead 
of  three,  and  must  have  risen  on  the  second, 
and  not  on  the  third  day,  according  to  the 
Scriptures. 

3.  He  can  have  been  in  the  grave  only 
over  one  Sabbath;  and  we  have  no  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  Matthew's  use  of  the 
plural  Zaffldrcov.  'OWE  AE  ZABBAT&N,  "  the 
end  of  the  Sabbaths"  (Matt,  xooviii.  1). 

4.  The  "  six  days "  and  the  "  two  days 
before  the  Passover"  cannot  be  explained 
consistently  with  the  general  belief  of  the 
church,  and  the  opinion  that  has  generally 
been  expressed  by  commentators  in  regard 
to  them. 


22      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 


5.  His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  can- 
not have  been  on  Sunday,  called  "  Palm  Sun- 
day," as  has  been  the  general  belief  of  the 
church,  but  must  have  been  on  Monday. 

6.  We  are  unable  to  account  for  the  occu- 
pation of  the  several  days  of  Passion  Week, 
and  the  concealment  that  hangs  over  Wednes- 
day. 

7.  There  is  plainly  an  irreconcilable  dis- 
crepancy between  John  and  the  other  evan- 
gelists, and  John  is  made  to  contradict  himself. 

While  His  having  been  crucified  on  Thurs- 
day makes  Him  to  have  been  crucified  on 
the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  the  day  in  which  the 
paschal  lamb  was  killed,  and  in  which,  as  the 
great  Antitype  "  our  Passover,"  He  should 
have  been  killed,  and  not  on  the  fifteenth  ; 
makes  Him  to  have  lain  three  nights  —  Thurs- 
day night,  Friday  night,  and  Saturday  night 
—  in  the  grave,  and  all  day  Friday  and  Satur- 
day, and  a  part  of  Sunday,  and,  consequently, 
to  have  risen  on  the  third  day ;  accounts  for 
Matthew's  use  of  the  plural  Zaffidzwv;  explains 
the  "  six  days"  and  the  "  two  days  before  the 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION.      23 

Passover  "  consistently  with  the  general  belief 
of  the  church,  and  the  generally  expressed 
opinion  of  commentators  in  regard  to  them ; 
makes  His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  to 
have  been  on  Sunday ;  accounts  fully  for  the 
occupation  of  the  several  days  of  Passion 
Week,  and  removes  the  concealment  which 
hangs  over  Wednesday ;  reconciles  the  appar- 
ent discrepancy  between  John  and  the  other 
evangelists,  and  removes  the  apparent  discrep- 
ancies in  his  own  statements  ;  in  short,  re- 
moves every  difficulty. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  false 
theory,  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
Friday,  presents  the  Bible  student  with  in- 
superable difficulties. 

Among  those  which  have  been  mentioned, 
the  attention  of  the  reader  is  here  called  more 
particularly  to  the  following :  — 

1.  It  makes  the  Saviour  to  have  lain  in  the 
grave  but  two  nights  —  Friday  night  and  Sat- 
urday night  —  and  over  one  day,  and  conse- 
quently to  have  risen  on  the  second  day,  which 
is  in  direct  contradiction  to  His  assertion  that 


24      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

He  should  be  "  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  heart  of  the  earth"  [Matt.  xii.  40),  and 
should  "  rise  again  the  third  day." 

2.  John,  on  this  theory,  is  made  to  contra- 
dict himself;  and  there  is  a  manifest  discrep- 
ancy between  him  and  the  other  evangelists, 
which  has  been  found  to  be  irreconcilable. 

The  sad  result  of  this  has  been,  that  some 
theologians  and  commentators  have  rejected 
certain  portions  of  the  Scripture  narrative. 

The  removal  of  a  difficulty  so  serious  cannot 
fail  to  awaken  an  interest  in  every  true  be- 
liever. 

That  I  have  not  exaggerated  this  difficulty, 
will  be  seen  from  the  following  quotations  :  — 

"  This  difference "  (between  John  and  the 
other  evangelists)  "  is  one  of  the  most  liti- 
gated questions  in  the  criticism  of  the  Gos- 
pels." "  John  designates  the  day  on  which 
the  Passover  should  have  been  eaten  as  the 
day  on  which  Christ  was  crucified.  The  con- 
trary date,  fixed  by  the  Synoptists,  which 
would  make  the  crucifixion  fall  on  the  loth  of 
Nisan,  —  that  is,  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      25 

—  is  encumbered  with  great  difficulties  "  (  Tho~ 
luck  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  p.  302). 

And  again,  "  The  larger  portion  of  the  mod- 
ern critics  have  been  led  by  an  examination  of 
this  subject  to  the  ultimate  result  that  there 
must  be  a  mistake  on  one  or  the  other  side, 

—  either  on  the  part  of  John,  or  on  that  of  the 
first  three  evangelists "  ( Tholuck  on  John,  p. 
303). 

And  yet  again,  "It  is  not  surprising  that 
some  modern  critics  should  have  given  up  as 
hopeless  the  task  of  reconciling  this  difficulty. 

"  Several  have  rejected  the  narrative  of  St. 
John  (Bretschneider,  Wiesse) ;  but  a  greater 
number  (especially  De  Wette,  Usteri,  Ewald, 
Meyer,  and  Thiele)  have  taken  an  opposite 
course,  and  have  been  contented  with  the  no- 
tion that  the  first  three  evangelists  made  a 
mistake,  and  confounded  the  meal  with  the 
Passover"  ("Biblical,  Theological,  and  Eccle- 
siastical Cyclopaedia"  M'CUntoch  and  Strong, 
vol.  vii.  p.  743.  See  also  Smith's  "Dictionary 
of  the  Bible"  vol.  Hi.  p.  2348). 

The  reader  will  see  from  this,  how  grave  the 


26      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

difficulty  is  acknowledged  to  be,  when  some 
have  been  led  by  it  to  reject  the  narrative  of 
John,  and  others  to  claim  that  the  first  three 
evangelists  made  a  mistake. 

To  reject  the  narrative  of  John,  is  to  claim 
that  it  is  not  true,  and  consequently  that  it  is 
not  inspired :  and  to  claim  that  the  first  three 
evangelists  made  a  mistake,  is  not  only  to  claim 
that  which  is  most  unreasonable,  but  to  dis- 
credit their  Gospels,  and  assume  that  they 
were  not  written  under  the  guidance  of  divine 
inspiration ;  and,  if  the  Scriptures  be  not  in- 
spired, they  cannot  be  a  revelation  from  God 
(see  chap.  ix.  pp.  175-177). 

But  we  are  not  following  "  cunningly  devised 
fables."  We  know  that  the  Scriptures  are  what 
they  purport  to  be  ;  that  they  were  given  by 
"  inspiration  of  God,  and  are  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right- 
eousness ;  "  and,  being  inspired,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  they  can  contain  no  real,  but  only 
apparent,  difficulties,  and  that  all  such,  when 
rigMy  understood,  must  admit  of  a  satisfactory 
explanation. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      27 

The  fact  then,  that,  on  the  falsely  assumed 
theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Fri- 
day, the  statements  in  regard  to  the  time  of  His 
crucifixion,  as  recorded  by  the  evangelists,  have 
now  for  more  than  eighteen  centuries  been 
found  to  be  irreconcilable,  while  His  having 
been  crucified  on  Thursday  harmonizes  them 
completely,  —  all  difficulties  disappear,  — 
should  be  sufficient  to  commend  the  truths 
presented  in  this  book  to  the  careful  atten- 
tion of  every  one  who  is  jealous  for  the  honor 
of  the  Word  of  God. 

Light,  that  makes  the  Bible  more  luminous, 
more  easily  and  literally  to  be  understood,  that 
obviates  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  seeming 
subterfuges  and  sophistical  reasoning  to  ex- 
plain its  apparent  difficulties,  should  be  sought 
after  and  welcomed. 

Because  a  mistake  has  inadvertently  crept 
into  the  church,  is  it  wise  to  shut  our  eyes  to  it, 
and  ignore  the  plainest  facts  to  the  contrary  ? 
to  persist  in  the  vain  endeavor  to  square  the 
Word  of  God  to  a  mistaken  theory  1  To  this 
there  can  be  but  one  answer.     Far  better  to 


28      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

examine  the  subject,  bring  all  the  light  possi- 
ble to  bear  upon  it,  apply  the  test  of  criticism, 
and  subject  it  to  the  severest  scrutiny,  assured 
that  error  will  become  manifest,  and  truth  will 
stand. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  question 
as  to  the  day  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  is  an 
important  one,  and  that  a  fundamental  princi- 
ple (the  death  of  Christ  as  our  Passover),  and 
the  correct  interpretation  of  Scripture  truth,  is 
involved  in  it. 

It  will,  I  think,  also  be  admitted,  that  the 
question,  whether  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Thursday,  the  14th  of  Nisan,  or  on  Friday 
the  15th,  is  an  important  one  considered  mere- 
ly as  a  question  of  fact. 


STATEMENT. 

Friday,  in  the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied, was  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  Jewish  month 
Nisan. 


II. 

FRIDAY,   THE  FIFTEENTH  OF   NISAN. 

As  presumptive  evidence  that  Friday,  in  the 
year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  was  the 
15th  of  Nisan,  we  have  the  general  opinion 
and  united  testimony  of  the  great  majority  of 
the  Western  church,  which  believes,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  that  our  Saviour  was  cru- 
cified on  Friday,  the  15th.  In  its  belief  that 
Friday  was  the  15th  of  the  month  Nisan,  the 
Western  church  is  correct ;  but  it  is  not  cor- 
rect in  the  belief  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  that  day. 

Another  presumption  in  its  favor  is,  that  it 
cannot  be  shown  to  the  contrary. 

However  unwilling  men  may  be  to  admit 
that  Friday  was  the  15th,  it  is  not  possible  for 
them  to  prove  the  contrary.  It  follows,  then, 
necessarily,  that  it  cannot  be  proved  that  Fri- 
st 


32      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

day  was  the  14th.  Those  who  assert  the  most 
dogmatically  that  it  was  the  14th,  do  not 
deny  that  it  may  have  been  the  15th;  and 
by  this  admission  they  acknowledge  that  they 
have  no  evidence  that  Friday  was  the  14th. 
If  they  had  evidence,  it  would  establish  the 
fact.  The  evidence  that  Friday  was  the  14th 
would  show  that  it  was  not  the  15th. 

In  proof  of  our  assertion,  that  those  who 
claim  that  Friday,  in  the  year  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified,  was  the  14th  of  Nisan,  are,  nev- 
ertheless, compelled  to  admit  that  it  may  have 
been  the  15th,  it  is  sufficient  to  cite  the  follow- 
ing, from  a  writer  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra," 
July,  1871,  p.  472:  "In  the  modern  Jewish 
calendar,  the  new  moon,  and  accordingly  the 
1st  of  Nisan,  is  no  longer  settled  by  observa- 
tion of  the  moon's  actual  phases,  but  by  as- 
tronomical calculations ;  and  indeed  in  such 
wise  that  the  15th  never  falls  on  Feria  second, 
fourth,  and  sixth,  that  is,  on  a  Monday, 
Wednesday,  or  Friday,  in  the  Jewish  sense. 
That  there  was  no  such  limitation,  however, 
in  early  times,  as,  for  example,  in  the  age  of 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      33 

Christ,  can  be  clearly  proved  from  the  '  Tal- 
mud.' In  'Mishna'  (Pesachim  vii.  10)  we 
read  that  the  remains,  i.e.,  the  bones,  etc.,  of 
the  paschal  lamb,  were  burned  on  the  16th  of 
Nisan,  but,  if  the  16th  were  a  Sabbath,  on  the 
17th.  From  which  it  follows  that  the  16th 
might  be  Feria  7,  and  the  15th,  Feria  6,  or 
Friday. 

"  So  also  in  '  Mishna '  ( Chagiga  ii.  4)  is  the 
case  discussed  in  which  the  day  of  Pentecost 
would  fall  on  a  Sabbath ;  but,  as  this  feast 
occurred  on  the  same  day  of  the  week  as  the 
1 6th  of  Nisan,  this  latter  must  then  have  been 
a  Saturday,  and,  accordingly,  the  15th  a  Fri- 
day." And  then  he  adds,  "  We  might  have 
passed  over  this  circumstance,  had  it  not  been 
maintained,  that,  in  the  year  of  Christ's  death, 
the  15th  of  Nisan  could  not  have  been  a  Fri- 
day, but  must  have  been  a  Sabbath,  because, 
as  is  commonly  assumed,  the  15th  of  Nisan 
could  not,  in  any  case,  fall  on  a  Friday."  And 
then  he  says  further,  "  We  also  believe,  that, 
in  the  said  year,  the  day  of  Passover  was  a 
Sabbath  day ;  but  we  felt  it  right  to  say  why 
we  can  make  no  use  of  this  argument." 


34      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Here  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  writer,  though 
believing,  as  he  says,  that  the  day  of  Passover, 
the  15th  of  the  month  Nisan,  was  a  Sabbath, 
and  consequently  that  Friday  was  the  14th, 
is,  notwithstanding,  in  fairness  compelled  to 
admit,  that  Friday  in  the  year  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  may  have  been  the  15th,  not  the 
14th,  of  Nisan. 

We  now  proceed  to  show,  not  only  that 
Friday,  in  the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  cru- 
cified, may  have  been  the  15th  of  the  month 
Nisan,  but  that  it  was  the  15th. 

In  confirmation  of  this,  we  quote,  first,  the 
assertions  of  distinguished  writers.  These 
assertions  are  confirmatory,  as  showing  the 
probability  that  Friday  was  the  15th,  in  so 
far  as  the  opinion  of  the  writers,  as  derived 
from  learning  and  research,  has  weight  as 
evidence  in  its  favor ;  but  for  proof,  we  rely 
on  the  Scripture  narrative. 

Dr.  Robinson  says,  in  his  notes  to  his 
"English  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,"  p.  191, 
"  Our  Lord  was  crucified  on  the  day  before 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  that  is,  on  Friday;  and, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.      35 

as  He  had  eaten  the  Passover  on  the  preced- 
ing evening,  it  follows  that  the  14th  of  Nisan 
fell  that  year  on  Thursday."  It  cannot  fail  to 
be  seen  from  this,  that,  while  Dr.  Robinson 
claims  (erroneously  as  we  shall  show  here- 
after) that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
Friday,  he  also  claims  that  Thursday  was  the 
14th  of  Nisan,  and  consequently  that  Friday 
was  the  15th. 

This  is  also  the  opinion  of  Lange.  In  his 
"Notes  on  Matthew,"  Am.  Ed.,  p.  454,  we 
read,  "  Then  follows  the  preparation  of  the 
Passover  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread ; 
that  is,  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  the  morning 
of  Thursday.  On  the  evening  of  the  14th 
Nisan,  the  beginning  of  the  15th,  came  the 
Passover  itself."  Here  it  is  stated  plainly, 
that  Thursday  was  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and 
Friday,  beginning  with  Thursday  evening, 
the  15th. 

Again,  p.  457,  "According  to  Wieseler  (p. 
386  sqq.),  Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  15th  of 
Nisan,  of  the  year  30  A.D.,  or  783  from  the 
foundation   of    Eome,   and    that   day   was   a 


36      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Friday."  Here  it  will  be  seen,  that  though 
Lange  claims,  that,  according  to  Wieseler, 
our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Friday,  he  also 
states  distinctly,  that,  according  to  Wieseler, 
Friday  was  the  loth  of  Nisan. 

If  the  reader  will  refer  to  Dr.  Smith's 
"  New-Testament  History,"  the  student's 
series,  pp.  304-316,  he  will  see  that  Dr. 
Smith  arranges  the  days  of  Passion  Week 
as  follows  :  — 

Palm  Sunday,  the  10th  of  Nisan ;  Mon- 
day, the  11th  of  Nisan;  Tuesday,  the  12th 
of  Nisan;  Wednesday,  the  13th  of  Nisan; 
Thursday,  the  14th  of  Nisan,  making  Friday 
the  15th.  We  find  the  same  arrangement 
of  days  also  in  his  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible," 
vol.  ii.  pp.  1372-1376. 

Few  names  are  of  higher  authority  on  this 
question  than  that  of  Dr.  William  Smith. 

Again,  it  is  an  indisputable  fact,  admitted 
by  all  commentators,  that  the  Passover  was 
eaten  on  the  beginning  of  the  15th  of  Nisan, 
and  consequently,  that  the  15th  was  the 
"feast-day"  (Lev.  xxlii.  6;  Num.  xxviii.  16, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      37 

17).  Recognizing  this,  Dr.  Whedon,  in  com- 
menting on  the  passage,  "  And  they  said,  not 
on  the  feast  day,  lest  there  be  an  uproar 
among  the  people "  [Matt,  xocvi.  5),  says, 
"  They  thus  decided  that  it  should  not  be  on 
the  feast-day,  that  is,  on  Friday."  Here,  also, 
it  will  be  seen,  that,  according  to  Dr.  Whedon, 
Friday  was  the  "  feast-day,"  and  consequently 
the  15th. 

In  the  article  on  the  Passover,  in  the  "  En- 
cyclopaedia of  Religious  Knowledge,"  p.  910, 
the  writer  says,  "It  is  the  most  general  opin- 
ion of  the  Christian  church,  as  well  Greek  as 
Latin,  that  our  Saviour  kept  the  legal  Pass- 
over on  the  Thursday  evening  as  well  as  the 
rest  of  the  Jews."  Now,  if  the  statement  of 
this  writer  be  admitted,  that  "it  is  the  most 
general  opinion  of  the  church  that  our  Saviour 
kept  the  legal  Passover  on  Thursday  even- 
ing," then  it  follows,  that  it  is  the  general 
opinion  of  the  church  that  Thursday  evening 
was  the  time  of  the  legal  Passover;  and,  as 
the  Passover  was  to  be  eaten  on  the  15th, 
and   was    eaten    on    Thursday   evening  (and 


38      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Thursday  evening,  according  to  the  Jewish 
reckoning,  was  the  beginning  of  Friday),  it 
follows  also,  that  it  is  the  general  opinion  of 
the  church  that  Friday  was  the  15th  of  the 
month  Nisan. 

We  rest  our  conclusion,  however,  that  Fri- 
day was  the  15th  of  Nisan,  not  on  the  general 
opinion  of  the  church  and  the  authority  of 
great  names  (we  have  quoted  these  simply  in 
confirmation),  but  on  the  evident  meaning  and 
intent  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 

The  evidence  thus  derived  will  now  be  con- 
sidered. 

1.  That  Friday  was  the  15th  of  Nisan  is 
confirmed  by  the  phraseology  used  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  1.  "In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath"  (or, 
more  correctly,  "after  the  Sabbath"),  "as  it 
began  to  dawn  towards  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other 
Mary  to  see  the  sepulchre." 

The  quotation  here  is  from  the  King  James 
version.  The  translation  in  the  revised  New 
Testament,  "  late  on  the  Sabbath  day,"  is  in- 
correct.    It  was   not  "  late   on   the   Sabbath 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      39 

day,"  but  on  Sunday  morning,  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  at  "  early  dawn,"  according  to  the 
translation  of  Luke  xxiv.  1 ,  in  the  revised  ver- 
sion, and,  according  to  the  translation  of  Mark 
xvi.  2,  "  when  the  sun  was  risen."  The  Sab- 
bath terminated  at  six  o'clock  the  evening  be- 
fore ;  and  this,  so  far  from  having  been  "  late 
on  the  Sabbath  dav,"  was  twelve  hours  after 
it  had  ended. 

The  reader  will  see,  by  referring  to  the  ori- 
ginal, that  it  is  '0\v&  ds  Za^drav,  "  the  end  of 
the  Sabbaths."  Now  this,  to  say  the  least,  is 
consistent  with  the  idea  that  a  plurality  of  Sab- 
baths preceded  the  first  day  of  the  week,  which 
must  have  been  the  case,  if,  according  to  the 
general  belief,  Friday  in  that  year  was  the 
15th  of  Nisan.  Since  Friday,  being  the  15th, 
must  have  been  the  day  when  the  Passover,  or 
paschal  lamb,  was  eaten ;  for  the  paschal  lamb 
was  killed  on  the  14th,  and  was  eaten  the  same 
evening,  after  the  15th  of  Nisan  had  begun 
(Exod.  xii.  6,8).  On  this  point  all  are  agreed, 
and  hence  there  can  be  no  difference  of  opin- 
ion in  regard  to  it. 


40      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Now,  the  15th,  being  the  day  on  which  the 
paschal  lamb  was  eaten,  was,  according  to  the 
divine  command,  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a 
Sabbath. 

The  15th,  then,  was  the  "feast-day,"  and 
was  reckoned  as  the  "  first  day  of  the  feast." 
This  will  be  seen  from  Lev.  xxiii.  6,  7. 

It  will  be  seen  also  [Lev.  xxiii.  7)  that  the 
first  day  of  the  feast,  the  15th,  and  [Lev.  xxiii. 
8)  the  seventh  day,  or  the  21st  of  Nisan,  were 
Sabbaths  ;  that  is,  "  days  of  holy  convocation, 
in  which  no  servile  work  was  to  be  performed." 
The  same  is  set  forth  also  in  other  places.  "  In 
the  first  day  shall  be  a  holy  convocation ;  ye 
shall  do  no  manner  of  servile  work  therein" 
[Num.  xxviii.  18).  "  And  on  the  seventh  day 
ye  shall  have  a  holy  convocation.  Ye  shall  do 
no  servile  work  "  (Num.  xxviii.  25.  See  also 
JExod.  xii.  16). 

That  these  days  of  "  holy  convocation,"  in 
which  "  no  servile  work  was  to  be  done,"  were 
strictly  Sabbaths,  will  appear  further,  from  the 
following :  "In  the  first  day  of  the  month 
shall  ye  have  a  Sabbath  ...  a  holy  convoca- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      41 

tion.  Ye  shall  do  no  servile  work  therein" 
(Lev.  xxiii.  24,  25). 

Here  it  will  be  seen  that  a  day  of  "  holy 
convocation,"  in  which  "  no  servile  work  was 
to  be  done,"  is  distinctly  called  a  Sabbath; 
and  hence  it  follows  that  the  fifteenth  and  the 
twenty-first  days  of  the  month  Nisan  (the  first 
and  last  days  of  the  feast),  being  days  of  "  holy 
convocation,"  in  which  no  servile  work  was  to 
be  done,"  were  Sabbaths,  on  whatever  day  of 
the  week  they  might  fall.  Friday,  therefore, 
the  15th  of  Nisan,  must  have  been  a  Sabbath. 
Accordingly  Dr.  Robinson  says,  in  his  notes  to 
his  "  English  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,"  p.  197, 
"  The  first  and  last  days  of  the  festival  were 
each  a  day  of  convocation  and  rest,  and  hence 
were  strictly  Sabbaths,  distinct  from  the  week- 
ly Sabbath,  except  when  one  of  them  happened 
to  fall  upon  this  latter."  In  "  Smith's  Diction- 
ary of  the  Bible,"  vol.  Hi.  p.  2343,  we  read, — 

"  On  the  sixteenth  day  of  the  month,  the 
morrow  after  the  Sabbath;  i.e.,  after  the  day 
of  holy  convocation."  Now,  here  it  will  be 
noticed  that  the  fact  is  stated,  that  the  16th 


42      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

was  the  day  after  the  Sabbath,  and  conse- 
quently, the  15th,  the  day  before  the  16th, 
was  the  Sabbath ;  that  is,  "  the  day  of  holy 
convocation." 

The  writer  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra," 
July,  1871,  to  whom  I  have  referred,  says,  p. 
471,  "  The  15th  of  Nisan  was  a  day  of  convo- 
cation, like  the  21st,  and  bore  the  name  Sab- 
bath, whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might  be ; " 
and  again, "  The  15th  of  Nisan  was  celebrated 
strictly  as  a  Sabbath." 

Yet  again,  Hobbs  says,  in  his  article  on  the 
"  Day  of  Pentecost,"  "  That  Saturday,  May 
27,  A.D.  30,  was  the  fiftieth  day  after  the 
paschal  Sabbath,  has  already  been  proved." 
This  fact  we  think  no  one  will  deny.  Now, 
reckoning  back  fifty  days  from  Saturday,  the 
"  Day  of  Pentecost,"  it  will  be  seen,  makes 
the  paschal  Sabbath  to  have  been  on  Friday, 
the  15  th. 

We  might  multiply  quotations  to  prove 
this,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  Nothing  can  be 
shown  more  definitely  from  the  Bible  than 
that  the  fifteenth  day  of  the    month   Nisan 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      43 

was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a  Sabbath  on 
whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might  fall,  and 
this  by  divine  appointment. 

And  that  the  Jews  not  only  regarded  it 
as  a  Sabbath,  but  also  as  a  "  great  day,"  or 
"high  day,"  according  to  John  xix.  31,  is 
equally  evident. 

In  John  vii.  37, we  read,  "In  the  last  day, 
that  great  day  of  the  feast,  Jesus  stood,  etc." 
The  day  referred  to,  was  the  last  day  of  the 
feast  of  Pentecost,  and  was  called  a  "  great 
day,"  because  it  was  a  "  day  of  convocation." 
That  the  first  and  last  days  of  the  feast  of 
Pentecost  and  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles 
were  "  days  of  holy  convocation,"  or  Sabbaths, 
as  were  the  first  and  the  last  days  in  the  feast 
of  the  Passover,  will  be  seen  from  Num. 
xxviii.  26,  and  Num.  xxix.   12,  35. 

That  the  word  "great"  in  John  vii.  37, 
"  The  last  great  day  of  the  feast,"  signifies 
the  same  as  the  word  "high"  in  John  xix. 
31,  "The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  the 
preparation,  that  the  bodies  should  not  re- 
main upon  the  cross  on  the  Sabbath  day,  for 


44      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

that  Sabbath  day  was  a  high  day,"  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  the  Greek  word  fieydhj 
is  used  in  the  original  in  both  instances ;  thus 
demonstrating  conclusively  that  the  15th  of 
Nisan  was  a  "  high  day,"  not  because  it  was 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  occurring  in 
the  Passover  festival,  but  because  it  was  the 
15th  of  Nisan,  the  "  first  day  of  the  feast," 
the  "  day  of  holy  convocation." 

In  further  confirmation  of  this,  I  quote 
again  from  the  writer  in  the  "  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,"  July,  1871,  whose  assertion  is  the 
more  gratifying,  and  should  be  the  more  con- 
vincing, because  it  comes  from  one  who  holds, 
and  is  contained  in  an  article  written  in  the 
endeavor  to  prove,  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday.  He  says,  p.  478,  "  The  15th 
of  Nisan  was  so  exceptionally  sacred,  that 
the  ordinary  Sabbath  might  be  turned  for  it 
into  a  day  of  preparation.  When  the  15th 
of  Nisan  fell  on  the  Jewish  Feria  1,  and 
accordingly  the  14th  of  Nisan  was  a  Sabbath, 
the  latter  might  be  broken  so  far  as  prepara- 
tions were  necessary  for  the  feast  ("  Mishna" 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      45 

Pesachim  in.  6 ;  vi.  1 ;  Jews,  Pesachim,  fol. 
xxxiii.  1).  From  which  it  follows,  that  the 
Passover  was  more  sacred  than  the  Sabbath." 
This  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  15th  of 
Nisan  was  a  Sabbath,  and  a  "  high  day  "  more 
sacred  to  the  Jews  than  any  ordinary  Sabbath. 

Friday  the  loth,  then,  being  a  Sabbath, 
and  Saturday  (the  day  following)  being  the 
ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath,  two  Sabbaths  must 
have  intervened  between  the  crucifixion  of 
our  Saviour  and  His  resurrection ;  and  Mat- 
thew might  appropriately  say,  V\ps  de  lappatcov, 
"  At  the  end  of  the  Sabbaths,"  or,  more  cor- 
rectly, "  after  the  Sabbaths "  (see  chap.  ix. 
pp.  229-232). 

This  expression,  therefore,  goes  incidentally 
to  prove  that  Friday  was  the  15th  of  Nisan. 

2.  Another  proof  is  found  in  our  Saviour's 
arrival  at  Bethany.  The  apostle  John  says 
(John  xii.  1),  "  Then  Jesus  six  days  before 
the  Passover  came  to  Bethany."  By  the  Pass- 
over we  are  to  understand  the  15th  of  Nisan, 
the  day  on  which  the  Passover,  or  paschal 
lamb,  was  eaten,  and  not  the  14th;  for  that 


46      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

was  not  the  Passover,  but  the  day  of  prepara- 
tion for  it. 

We  have  here  the  fact  definitely  stated,  that 
the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Bethany  was  "  six  days 
before  the  Passover."  If,  now,  we  can  deter- 
mine the  day  of  the  week  on  which  He  came 
to  Bethany,  it  will  be  easy  from  this  to  deter- 
mine the  day  of  the  Passover. 

The  general  opinion  of  the  church,  and 
consequently  the  opinion  most  commonly  set 
forth  by  commentators,  is,  that  Jesus  arrived 
in  Bethany  on  Friday  evening,  or  some  time  in 
the  day  of  Saturday.  Dr.  Smith  says,  in  his 
"  New-Testament  History,"  Student's  Series, 
book  ii.  chap.  x.  p.  300,  "  He  arrived  at 
Bethany  six  days  before  the  Passover,  that 
is,  on  Friday  the  8th  of  Nisan,  the  eve  of  the 
Sabbath."  By  the  "  eve  of  the  Sabbath  "  he 
means  the  "  late  evening,"  or  after  six  o'clock 
on  Friday  ;  that  is,  after  the  Sabbath  had  com- 
menced. 

Tholuck  says,  in  his  "  Commentary  on  the 
Gospel  of  John,"  chap.  xii.  p.  288,  "  It  is  not 
probable   that   the  journey  and   arrival"  (at 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      47 

Bethany)  "  took  place  on  the  Sabbath.  They 
occurred  perhaps,  therefore,  on  Friday,  late  in 
the  evening ;  "  that  is,  after  six  o'clock,  when 
the  Sabbath  had  begun.  That  he  means  that 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  journey  and  arrival 
at  Bethany  took  place  in  the  daylight  of  the 
Sabbath,  or  between  sunrise  and  sunset,  is  evi- 
dent; for,  according  to  the  Jew's  reckoning, 
"  late  in  the  evening  "  of  Friday  would  be  the 
Sabbath,  or  Saturday. 

Dr.  Maclear  says,  in  his  "  Class-Book  of 
New-Testament  History,"  part  vii.  chap.  i.  p. 
259,  "  It  was  apparently  on  a  Friday  evening 
when  the  Saviour  reached  the  hamlet  of  Beth- 
any." Canon  Farrar,  in  his  "  Life  of  Christ," 
says,  "  Christ  arrived  at  Bethany  on  the  even- 
ing of  Friday,  Nisan  8,  March  31,  A.D.  30, 
six  days  before  the  Passover."  Other  writers 
might  be  quoted  to  show  that  this  is  the  gen- 
eral opinion.  (It  will  be  noticed  in  passing, 
that  Smith  and  Farrar  both  speak  distinctly  of 
Friday  as  being  the  8th  of  Nisan,  which, 
according  to  their  reckoning,  makes  the  fol- 
lowing Friday  the  15th.) 


48      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Some  writers  say  that  our  Saviour  arrived  at 
Bethany  on  Saturday  ;  but  whether  they  mean 
by  this,  that  He  arrived  there  in  the  daylight 
of  Saturday,  or  on  Friday  evening,  since  that 
would  be  the  beginning  of  Saturday,  we  have 
no  means  of  determining. 

According  to  Kitto,  our  Lord  reached  Beth- 
any on  Saturday  (see  Kitto 's  remarks  on  the 
triumphal  entry  in  his  "  Daily  Bible  Illustra- 
tions ").  Dr.  Whedon,  Lange,  Olshausen.  and 
others,  believe  that  He  arrived  in  Bethany  on 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday.  This  is  the 
view  set  forth  in  "  The  Comprehensive  Com- 
mentary." These  also,  with  other  commenta- 
tors, claim  that  the  Sabbath  on  which  our  Sav- 
iour arrived  at  Bethany  was  the  ninth  day  of 
the  month  Nisan ;  though  some,  while  admit- 
ting the  arrival  to  have  been  on  the  Sabbath, 
claim  that  that  Sabbath  was  the  eighth  day  of 
the  month  Nisan.  Lange  says  of  such,  in  his 
"Notes  on  John,"  Am.  Ed.,  p.  370,  "Meyer 
reckons  with  Ewald  from  the  14th  back  to  the 
8th  of  Nisan  :  he  also  asserts,  however,  that  it 
was  a  Sabbath,  in  accordance  with  the  false 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.      49 

assumption  that  Jesus  died  on  the  14th  of 
Nisan,  and  yet  on  a  Friday."  It  will  be  seen 
from  these  remarks  in  Lange,  that  Ewald  and 
Meyer  first  assume  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday,  and  then  that  He  was  crucified 
on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  therefore  that  Fri- 
day must  have  been  the  14th ;  and  then  they 
reckon  back  six  days  to  Saturday,  making  it, 
in  then  estimation,  the  8th :  but,  as  the  result 
is  based  on  mere  assumptions,  it  has  no  evi- 
dence in  its  favor. 

Whether  we  adopt  the  opinion  that  our  Sav- 
iour arrived  at  Bethany  "  late  on  Friday  even- 
ing," or  in  the  daylight  of  Saturday,  the  reck- 
oning is  the  same.  In  either  event,  the  arrival 
was  on  Saturday. 

We  now  proceed  to  show  why  the  general 
opinion,  that  the  arrival  at  Bethany  took  place 
on  Saturday,  is  the  correct  one.  If  we  assume 
that  our  Saviour  arrived  at  Bethany  on  Friday, 
then  Friday  must  have  been  "  six  days  before 
the  Passover ;  "  and  consequently,  on  this  the- 
ory, Thursday  must  have  been  the  day  of  the 
Passover,  the  15th  of  Nisan,  and  Friday,  the 


50      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

16th:  and  hence,  if  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday,  He  must  have  been  crucified  on  the 
16th  of  Nisan,  a  theory  which  has  never  been 
advocated. 

That  the  arrival  cannot  have  been  on  Sun- 
day, as  set  forth  by  Dr.  Robinson  and  others, 
is  equally  apparent ;  for  John  says  {John  xii. 
12,  the  King  James  version),  "  On  the  next 
day,"  (the  revised  New  Testament),  "  On  the 
morrow,"  showing  that  our  Saviour's  tri- 
umphal entry  into  Jerusalem  was  the  day 
after  His  arrival  at  Bethany ;  and  this  has 
always  been  reckoned  by  the  church  as  "Palm 
Sunday." 

Dr.  Whedon  says,  in  his  "  Notes  on  Mat- 
thew," p.  238,  "  I  see  no  good  ground  for 
adopting  any  other  than  the  scheme  of  the 
ancient  church,  sanctioned  by  Olshausen,  Tho- 
luck,  and  others.  It  supposes  the  triumphal 
entry  to  have  been  on  Sunday,  called  "  Palm 
Sunday." 

Now,  on  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour 
arrived  at  Bethany  on  Sunday,  His  triumphal 
entry   into   Jerusalem,   being  the  day   after, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      51 

would  have  been  on  Monday,  not  on  Sunday, 
called  "  Palm  Sunday,"  which  would  be  against 
the  universal  belief  of  the  church. 

That  He  arrived  at  Bethany,  not  on  Friday 
or  Sunday,  but  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or 
Saturday,  would  seem  also  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  following  :  In  Lange's  "  Notes  on 
Matthew,"  Am.  Ed.,  p.  454,  we  read  that  the 
anointing  in  Bethany  took  place  "  on  the 
evening  of  the  Saturday  before  Palm  Sunday." 
Dr.  Smith  agrees  with  this  (see  "  New-  Testa- 
ment History"  p.  300,  also  "  The  Compre- 
hensive Commentary"  Matthew-John,  p.  738). 
This  would  seem  also  to  be  the  teaching  of 
John  xii.  2. 

That  this  is  a  controverted  point,  we  admit ; 
but  the  only  reason  is,  the  supposed  difficulty 
in  reconciling  it  with  Matt.  xxvi.  6,  7,  and 
Mark  xiv.  3,  which  we  shall  consider  here- 
after. Now,  as,  according  to  Dr.  Smith, 
Lange,  and  others,  this  anointing  took  place 
on  Saturday  evening,  our  Saviour  must  have 
been  in  Bethany  on  Saturday.  The  evidence, 
therefore,  is  conclusive,  that  Jesus  arrived  at 


52      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Bethany  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday . 
and,  as  He  arrived  there  "  six  days  before 
the  Passover,"  the  day  of  that  Passover  must 
have  been  the  following  Friday;  and  conse- 
quently Friday  must  have  been  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan. 

3.  An  examination  of  the  "  two  days " 
[Matt,  xocvi.  2 ;  Mark  xiv.  1)  leads  us  to  the 
same  conclusion.  Dr.  Whedon  says  ("  Notes 
on  Matthew"  p.  303),  "  This  was  uttered 
probably  at  sunset  on  Tuesday."  And  as,  at 
that  season  of  the  year,  the  sun  does  not  set 
in  Jerusalem  until  after  six  o'clock,  which 
(according  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning) 
was  the  beginning  of  the  next  day,  it  must 
have  been  said  on  the  beginning  of  Wednes- 
day. Dr.  Smith  says  ("  New -Testament  His- 
tory" book  ii.  chap.  xi.  p.  313),  in  speaking 
of  Wednesday,  the  13th  of  Nisan,  "  that  this 
announcement  was  made  on  the  preceding 
evening,"  thus  agreeing  with  Dr.  Whedon. 
According  to  Dr.  Maclear  ("  Class-Book  of 
New -Testament  History"  book  ii.  part  vii.  chap, 
iv,  p.  277),  our  Saviour  said   this   on   Tues- 


THE   DAY   OF   OUR   SAVIOUR  S   CRUCIFIXION.      53 

day  evening,  and,  after  saying  it,  "  retired 
in  all  probability  to  Bethany."  According 
to  Lange  ("  Notes  on  Matthew"  Am,  Ed., 
p.  454),  the  annonncement  "  after  two  days 
is  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  was  made  by 
onr  Saviour  to  His  disciples  more  probably  on 
Wednesday  than  late  on  Tuesday  evening. 
No  commentator,  so  far  as  we  know,  has  ever 
put  the  announcement  later  than  Wednesday  : 
while  some,  as  we  have  seen,  put  it  on  Tues- 
day evening,  which  is,  in  reality,  on  Wednes- 
day ;  for  the  Jews  reckoned  their  days  from 
six  o'clock  on  the  preceding  evening.  Tues- 
day evening,  therefore,  would  be  the  begin- 
ning of  Wednesday.  So  that  on  this  point, 
whether  we  say  that  the  announcement  was 
made  on  Tuesday  evening,  or  in  the  daylight 
on  Wednesday,  there  is,  so  far  as  the  reckon- 
ing is  concerned,  a  substantial  agreement.  It 
would  be  Wednesday  in  either  case ;  and  "  two 
days  "  after  Wednesday  would  be  Friday, 
which,  according  to  our  Saviour's  announce- 
ment, must  have  been  the  day  of  the  Pass- 
over, and,  consequently,  the  15th  of  Nisan. 


54      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

That  our  Saviour  meant  the  day  of  the  Pass- 
over festival,  and  not  the  day  of  preparation 
for  it,  is  clear  from  the  expression  in  Mark  xiv. 
1,  2,  "After  two  days  was  the  feast  of  the 
Passover,  and  of  unleavened  bread:  and  the 
chief  priests  and  the  scribes  sought  how  they 
might  take  Him  by  craft,  and  put  Him  to 
death.  But  they  said,  Not  on  the  feast  day, 
lest  there  be  an  uproar  of  the  people."  Now, 
this  shows  that  the  day  to  which  our  Saviour 
referred  in  the  expression,  "  After  two  days 
is  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  was  the  "  feast 
day ; "  that  is,  the  day  on  which  the  paschal 
lamb  was  eaten,  the  15th  of  Nisan  {Num. 
vocviii.  17.  "  And  in  the  fifteenth  day  of  this 
month  is  the  feast ") :  and,  therefore,  as  this 
was  said  on  Wednesday,  the  feast-day  must 
have  been  Friday;  and  consequently  Friday 
must  have  been  the  15th  of  Nisan.  This  is 
confirmed  by  Dr.  Whedon,  who  says  ("Notes 
on  Matthew"  p.  305),  "'Not  on  the  feast 
day.'"  "  They  thus  decided  that  it  should  not 
be  on  the  feast-day  ;  that  is,  on  Friday." 

It  is  said  in  Lange,  "  Notes  on  Matthew," 


THE  DxVY   OF   OUR   SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.      55 

Am.  Ed.,  p.  454,  that  Jesus  announced  to 
His  disciples,  that,  "  After  two  days  He 
should  be  crucified." 

That  this  is  a  mistake,  is  plainly  to  be 
seen.  Jesus  made  no  such  announcement. 
He  said  {Matt.  xxvi.  2),  "  After  two  days  is 
the  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  the  Son  of 
man  is  betrayed  to  be  crucified."  Revised 
New  Testament,  "  delivered  up  to  be  cruci- 
fied." It  will  be  noticed  that  He  said  nothing 
in  regard  to  the  time  of  His  crucifixion.  He 
announced  simply  (1)  the  time  of  the  feast 
("After  two  days"),  and  (2)  the  fact  of  His 
betrayal.  The  statement  in  Lange,  therefore, 
is  incorrect:  and  it  leads  into  the  error  of 
making  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  to  have  taken 
place  on  the  15th  of  Nisan  instead  of  the 
14th ;  for  we  read  [Lange  on  Matthew ',  p. 
454)  that  "  the  preparation  of  the  Passover 
on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  was  on 
the  14th  of  Nisan,  the  morning  of  Thursday. 
On  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  Nisan,  the 
beginning  of  the  15th,  came  the  Passover 
itself."     Here  it  is  stated  plainly  that  Thurs- 


5G      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

day  was  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  Friday  the 
15th. 

This  agrees  with  the  previous  reckoning, 
but,  on  the  falsely  assumed  theory,  that  our 
Saviour  was  to  be  "  crucified  after  two  days," 
makes  Him  to  have  been  crucified  on  Friday 
the  15th  of  Nisan,  not  on  the  14th;  and,  to 
substantiate  this  position,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing (Lange's  "  Notes  on  Matthew"  Am.  Ed., p. 
457)  :  "  According  to  Wieseler  (p.  386  sqq.), 
Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  15th  of  Nisan  of 
the  year  30  A.D.,  or  783  from  the  foundation 
of  Rome ;  and  that  day  was  a  Friday." 

It  will  be  seen,  we  think,  clearly  from  the 
foregoing,  that  Friday,  in  the  year  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified,  must  have  been  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  Jewish  month  Nisan. 

We  know  that  some  claim  that  Friday  in 
that  year  fell  on  the  14th,  but  have  never  seen 
it  sustained  by  a  particle  of  evidence.  It  has 
been  mere  assertion,  and  has  been  based  en- 
tirely on  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  Friday ;  and  therefore,  as  the  pas- 
chal lamb  was  to  be  killed  on  the  14th,  it  has 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      57 

been  assumed  that  Friday  in  that  year  was  the 
14th  of  Nisan.  But  the  premise  being  wrong 
has  led  to  a  false  conclusion. 

To  recapitulate  briefly,  we  have  shown :  — 

1.  That  it  has  been  the  almost  universal 
belief  of  the  Western  church,  that  Friday, 
in  the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified, 
was  the  15th  of  the  month  Nisan. 

2.  That  it  is  not  and  cannot  be  denied,  by 
its  most  strenuous  opponents,  that  Friday,  in 
the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  may 
have  been  the  15th  of  Nisan. 

3.  That  it  is  positively  asserted  by  Lange, 
Wieseler,  Dr.  Kobinson,  Dr.  Smith,  Dr.  Whe- 
don,  Canon  Farrar,  and  others  of  our  most 
distinguished  theologians  and  commentators, 
that  Friday  was  the  15th  of  Nisan. 

4.  That  it  is  evident  from  the  Bible  nar- 
rative. 


STATEMENT. 

Our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan ;  and  therefore,  as  Friday 
was  the  fifteenth,  He  must  have  been  crucified  on 
Thursday. 


ni. 


OUR  SAVIOUR  WAS  CRUCIFIED  ON  THE  FOUR- 
TEENTH OF  NISAN. 

Having  shown  that  Friday,  in  the  year  that 
our  Saviour  was  crucified,  was  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan,  we  proceed  to  the 
second  point  in  the  argument,  that  He  was 
crucified  on  the  14th,  and  that  consequently, 
as  Friday  was  the  15th,  He  must  have  been 
crucified  on  Thursday. 

Our  first  argument  in  proof  of  this  is  drawn 
from  the  fact  that  Christ  was  the  great  Anti- 
type of  the  Passover. 

1.  It  is  well  known  that  the  paschal  lamb 
was  a  type  of  Christ.  Therefore  the  apostle 
says  (1  Cor.  v.  7),  "  Christ  our  Passover  is 
sacrificed  for  us."  Albert  Barnes,  in  com- 
menting on  this  passage,  says,  "  Our  Passover, 
our  paschal  lamb,  for  so  the  word  ndcxu  usually 
signifies."     John  the  Baptist  also  pointed  his 

61 


62      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

disciples  to  Christ,  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world  "  [John  i. 
29,  36).  And  the  song  of  the  redeemed  in 
Heaven  is  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain"  (Rev.  v.  12). 

2.  The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  without 
blemish  (Exod.  xii.  5).  So  Christ  was  with- 
out blemish. 

3.  It  is  known  that  our  Saviour  was  cru- 
cified at  the  time  of  the  Passover. 

4.  The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  "  taken," 
that  is,  set  apart  from  the  flock  for  sacrifice, 
on  the  tenth  day,  and  to  be  kept  until  the 
14th  (Exod.  xii.  3,  6):  and,  in  our  argument 
to  prove  that  Friday  was  the  15th  of  Nisan, 
we  have  shown  that  the  supper  in  Bethany 
took  place  on  the  evening  of  Saturday  after 
six  o'clock,  and,  consequently,  after  the  10th 
of  Nisan  had  begun ;  and  hence,  as  our  Sav- 
iour was  anointed  by  Mary  on  that  occasion, 
it  follows,  that,  as  the  great  Antitype,  He  was 
thus  set  apart  for  sacrifice,  according  to  the 
commandment,  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.      63 

The  only  objection  that  can  be  made  to 
this,  is  the  apparent  difficulty  in  reconciling 
it  with  the  account  of  the  supper  as  recorded 
by  Matthew  and  Mark  {Matt,  xxvi.  6-13; 
Mark  xiv.  3-9). 

It  will  be  clearly  seen  that  this  is  not  a 
real,  but  only  an  apparent,  difficulty.  Because 
Matthew  and  Mark  have  recorded  the  supper 
in  Bethany,  in  connection  with  and  after  the 
saying  of  our  Saviour  ("  After  two  days  is  the 
feast  of  the  Passover  "),  it  has  been  thought 
that  the  supper  must  have  taken  place  after 
those  words  were  spoken,  and,  consequently, 
that  it  must  have  taken  place  but  "  two  days  " 
instead  of  " six  days  before  the  Passover; "  and, 
on  account  of  this,  some  have  attempted  to 
show  that  there  were  two  suppers  in  Bethany, 
at  both  of  which  Jesus  was  anointed  by  Mary, 
and  Judas  made  complaint,  one,  having  taken 
place  two  days  before  the  Passover,  and  the 
other,  six.  It  is  manifest,  however,  that  these, 
as  recorded  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John 
{John  xii.  2-8),  are  different  accounts  of  the 
same  supper.     They  are  so  nearly  alike,  that 


64      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 


the  idea  of  two  suppers  would  never  have 
been  suggested,  if  it  had  not  been  to  remove 
an  apparent  difficulty.  But  such  an  attempt 
increases  it.  In  the  effort  to  avoid  Scylla  we 
run  into  Charybdis. 

The  mistake,  evidently,  has  been  in  suppos- 
ing that  the  evangelists  Matthew  and  Mark 
have  recorded  the  saying  of  Christ  ("  After 
two  days  is  the  feast  of  the  Passover")  and 
the  supper  in  Bethany,  in  the  chronological 
order  of  their  occurrence. 

That  Matthew  and  Mark  have  not  recorded 
them  chronologically,  is  apparent,  because  they 
would  thus  conflict  with  the  statement  as 
made  by  John,  and  also,  from  the  narratives 
themselves.  The  record  is  simply  [Matt.  xxvi. 
6),  "  Now  when  Jesus  was  in  Bethany,  in  the 
house  of  Simon,"  etc.  From  this  it  will  be 
seen,  that  no  reference  is  made  to  the  time. 
From  any  thing  that  appears  in  the  narrative, 
it  may  have  been  after  the  saying  ("  After  two 
days,"  etc.)  recorded  of  Jesus,  or  it  may  have 
been  some  time  before.  Matthew  had  been 
speaking  [Matt.  xxvL  3,5)  of  "  the  plotting 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.      65 

of  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  to  put  Christ 
to  death ; "  and  it  would  appear  as  though  that 
circumstance  had  suggested  to  his  mind  the 
occurrence  of  the  supper  at  Bethany,  which 
had  taken  place  the  previous  Sabbath  evening, 
when  Mary  had  anointed  the  Saviour  for  His 
burial :  and  so  he  placed  it  in  this  connection, 
recording  it  in  the  following  verse  [Matt.  xxvi. 
6). 

It  appears  also  to  have  been  the  same  with 
Mark.  He,  like  Matthew,  makes  no  mention 
of  the  time  when  the  supper  in  Bethany  took 
place,  but  says  [Mark  xiv.  3),  "  And  being  in 
Bethany  in  the  house  of  Simon,"  etc. 

It  is  believed  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel 
as  he  received  it  from  Peter ;  and  it  is  not 
improbable  that  the  "  plotting  of  Christ's 
death,"  and  "  the  anointing  Him  for  His 
burial,"  may  have  suggested,  the  connecting  of 
the  two  incidents,  to  him,  as  well  as  to  Mat- 
thew. 

Further,  it  is  known  that  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  was  extant  at  the  time  when  Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel,  some  believing  it  to  have 


66      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

been  written  as  early  as  A.D.  37,  which  was 
from  twenty  to  twenty-five  years  previous ; 
and,  having  Matthew's  Gospel  before  him, 
Mark  would  very  naturally  follow  its  order  in 
certain  instances,  and  may  have  done  in  this. 
This  appears  the  more  probable,  when  we  con- 
sider the  well-known  fact  that  Matthew  wrote 
for  Jews,  and  Mark,  for  Gentiles.  This  may 
be  admitted  without  charging  that  "  the  strik- 
ing coincidences  between  the  two  Gospels  are 
such  as  to  show  that  Mark  compiled  his  Gos- 
pel from  Matthew,"  as  Augustine,  Simon, 
Calmet,  Adler,  Owen,  Harwood,  and  other 
learned  men  have  claimed.  (For  the  discussion 
of  this,  see  Home  's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.  part  vi. 
chap.  ii.  sect.  iv.  p.  306.) 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  account  as 
given  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  that  really  con- 
flicts with  the  statement  in  John  xii.  2,  which 
implies  that  the  supper  took  place  the  even- 
ing after  our  Saviour's  arrival  at  Bethany. 
Now,  this  being  seen,  it  will  be  admitted  that 
the  supper  in  Bethany  took  place,  as  we  have 
shown,  on  the  evening  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      67 

or  Saturday,  which,  according  to  the  Jews' 
manner  of  reckoning,  was  on  the  beginning  of 
Sunday,  the  tenth  day  of  the  month  Msan. 
And  at  that  supper  our  Saviour  said,  according 
to  John  xii.  7,  "  Against  the  day  of  my  bury- 
ing hath  she  kept  this ;  "  and  according  to 
Matt.  xxvi.  12,  "  In  that  she  hath  poured  this 
ointment  on  my  body,  she  did  it  for  my 
burial ;  "  and  according  to  Mark  xiv.  8,  "  She 
is  come  aforehand  to  anoint  my  body  to  the 
burying." 

Now,  when  we  consider  that  priests  and 
prophets  and  kings  were  set  apart  to  their 
respective  offices  by  being  anointed  with  oil, 
and  that  all  these  offices  inhered  in  Christ, 
that  He  was  our  priest  to  atone  for  us,  our 
prophet  to  instruct  us,  and  our  king  to  rule 
over  us,  we  see  how  significant  His  anointing 
by  Mary  becomes  in  setting  Him  apart  for 
sacrifice  as  the  "  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh 
away  the  sins  of  the  world,"  especially  when 
we  take  it  in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the 
anointing  took  place  on  the  tenth  day  of  the 
month   Nisan,  the   time   when,    according    to 


68      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

the  commandment,  the  paschal  lamb  was  to 
be  set  apart  for  sacrifice. 

5.  The  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  killed 
(Eocod.  xii.  6)  in  the  evening,  or  (as  in  the 
marginal  reading,  which  is  according  to  the 
Hebrew),  "  between  the  two  evenings." 

It  is  claimed  by  some,  that  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase,  "  between  the  two  evenings,"  is  a 
doubtful  one.  We  admit  that  there  have 
been  different  opinions  concerning  it,  but  the 
meaning  is  by  no  means  doubtful.  The 
Karaites  and  the  Samaritans  consider  it  as  the 
interval  between  sunset  and  dark.  That  this 
cannot  have  been  its  meaning  is  evident ;  for 
in  that  case  the  lamb  must  have  been  slain 
after  sunset,  which,  as  the  Jews  reckoned 
their  days  from  evening  to  evening,  must  have 
been  after  the  beginning  of  the  loth,  and 
would  make  it  to  have  been  slain  on  the  15th 
of  Nisan,  not  on  the  14th,  according  to  the 
commandment.  The  Pharisees  and  Eabbin- 
ists  held  that  the  first  evening  commenced 
when  the  sun  began  to  go  down ;  that  is,  at 
twelve  o'clock  m.,  and  that  the  second  evening 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      69 

began  at  sunset.  This  was  its  true  meaning. 
For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  see 
"  Biblical,  Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Cy- 
clopaedia," M'Clintock  and  Strong,  vol.  vii.  p. 
735,  and  Smith's  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible," 
vol.  Hi.  p.  2342  (foot-notes). 

But  while  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"  between  the  two  evenings,"  is  between 
twelve  o'clock  and  sunset,  the  meaning  prac- 
tically in  this  instance  is  to  be  derived  from 
the  practice  of  the  Jews.  If  we  can  ascer- 
tain at  what  time  they  killed  the  paschal 
lamb,  we  shall  learn  what  they  understood  by 
the  command  to  kill  it  "  between  the  even- 
ings." Josephus  is  good  authority ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  him  ("  Wars"  book  vi.  chap.  ix. 
sect.  3),  "  the  lambs  were  slain  from  the  ninth 
hour  till  the  eleventh ;  "  that  is,  between  three 
and  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  "  Mishna "  (Pesa- 
chim,  v.  3)  and  by  Maimonides,  who  says  they 
were  killed  immediately  after  the  evening 
sacrifice,  which  was  offered  at  the  ninth  hour, 
or  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 


70     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION, 

It  will  be  seen  that  they  began  to  slay  the 
lambs  at  the  ninth  hour,  or  three  o'clock, 
which  was  exactly  midway  between  the  two 
evenings ;  as  the  first  evening  was  the  time 
when  the  sun  began  to  go  down,  or  twelve 
o'clock  m.,  and  the  second,  at  sunset;  and  this 
was  the  time  when  the  death  of  our  Saviour 
took  place,  at,  or  more  probably  soon  after, 
three  o'clock,  the  ninth  hour  (see  Matt,  xxvii. 
45-50  ;  Mark  xv.  33-37  ;  Luke  xxiii.  44-46). 

6.  The  apostle  John  says  (John  xix.  33), 
"  They  brake  not  His  legs."  And  again 
(John  xix.  36),  "  For  these  things  were  done 
that  the  Scriptures  should  be  fulfilled,  — c  A 
bone  of  Him  shall  not  be  broken.'"  The 
Scriptures  said  to  have  been  fulfilled  are  Exod. 
xii.  46  and  Num.  ix.  12,  and  in  both  instances 
it  was  spoken  of  the  paschal  lamb ;  and  its 
fulfilment  in  Christ  shows  that  He  died  as  our 
paschal  lamb,  our  Passover,  the  great  Anti- 
type of  the  Jewish  Passover.  This  being 
seen,  it  will  be  seen  also,  that  as  the  Passover 
was  to  be  killed  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month  Nisan  (Exod.  xii.  6),  so  our  Saviour 
must  have  been  crucified  on  that  day. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      71 

7.  That  the  type  ceased  when  the. great 
Antitype  was  offered,  is  another  evidence  that 
Christ  died  as  our  Passover ;  that  the  sacrifice 
of  the  paschal  lamb  found  its  fulfilment  in 
Him.  The  feast  of  the  Passover  is  not  an 
ordinance  of  the  Christian  church,  because 
the  Lord's '  Supper  has  been  instituted  in  its 
place.  And  this  latter  is  to  be  observed  by 
Christ's  followers  in  commemoration  of  His 
death  ("  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me," 
Luke  xxii.  19  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  25.  "  As  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  the  Lord's  death  till  He  come,"  1  Cor. 
xi.  26).  And  the  reason  is  obvious.  As  the 
Passover  pointed  the  Jew  forward  to  Christ  as 
his  Passover,  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  great 
sacrifice  that  was  to  come ;  so  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per points  the  Christian  back  to  Christ  as  his 
Passover,  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  great  sacrifice 
that  has  been  offered. 

8.  That  Christ  died  as  our  Passover,  and 
rose  again  for  our  justification,  was  typified  in 
the  wave-offering.  The  law  in  regard  to  the 
wave-sheaf  is  recorded  in  Lev.  xxiii.  10,  11. 


72      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

"  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say 
unto  them,  when  ye  be  come  into  the  land 
which  I  give  unto  you,  and  shall  reap  the 
harvest  thereof,  then  ye  shall  bring  a  sheaf 
of  the  firstfraits  of  your  harvest  unto  the 
priest :  and  he  shall  wave  the  sheaf  before  the 
Lord,  to  be  accepted  for  you  :  on  the  morrow 
after  the  sabbath  the  priest  shall  wave  it." 
In  this  there  are  three  points  to  be  noticed. 
The  first  is,  that  the  wave-sheaf  was  a  sheaf 
of  the  first-fruits,  and  was  a  type  of  our 
Saviours  resurrection  from  the  dead.  As  the 
sheaf  of  first-fruits  was  a  pledge  to  the 
Israelites  of  the  future  harvest ;  so  the  resur- 
rection of  our  Saviour  from  the  dead  was  a 
pledge  to  God's  spiritual  Israel  of  the  coming 
resurrection ;  symbolized  the  truth  expressed 
by  our  Saviour  to  His  disciples  in  John  xiv. 
19,  "  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also."  This 
was  spoken  only  the  day  before  His  death, 
and  had  reference  to  His  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. This  will  be  seen  by  taking  the  pas- 
sage in  its  connection.  "  Yet  a  little  while, 
and  the  world  seeth  me  no  more ;  but  ye  see 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      73 

me:  because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also."  The 
world  would  not  see  Him  because  of  His 
death.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that 
after  His  death  the  world  saw  him  no  more ; 
for  He  appeared  only  to  those  who  were  His 
followers,  and  not  unto  the  world  after  His 
resurrection.  Tholuck  says  in  his  "  Commen- 
tary on  the  Gospel  of  John,"  p.  406,  "  The 
enemies  of  the  Redeemer  were  to  see  Him  no 
more  when  He  had  risen.  This  was  the 
privilege  of  His  friends  alone."  Clearly  the 
truth  conveyed  in  the  passage  "  Because  I 
live,  ye  shall  live  also,"  is,  that  the  disciples 
would  live  because  of  His  resurrection.  This 
truth,  typified  by  the  waving  of  the  first-fruits, 
is  set  forth  also  by  the  apostle,  when  he  says, 
"  Now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and 
become  the  firstfruits  of  them  that  slept " 
(1  Cor.  xv.  20).  This  is  the  general  opinion 
of  commentators  ("  Comprehensive  Commen- 
tary, Gen.-Jud."  p.  431).  "This  sheaf  of 
first-fruits  was  typical  of  our  Lord  Jesus, 
who  is  risen  from  the  dead  as  the  first- 
fruits  of  them  that  slept."     Dr.  Scott  also,  in 


74      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

speaking  of  it,  says,  "  The  first-fruits  pre- 
sented to  God  with  a  sacrifice  implied  that  the 
title  of  the  Israelites  to  the  fruits  of  the 
earth  rested  on  the  gift  of  a  reconciled  God, 
through  the  sacrifice  of  the  promised  Saviour. 
.  .  .  They  also  prefigured  Christ,  not  only  as 
the  first-fruits  from  the  dead,  and  the  earnest 
of  the  great  harvest  of  the  resurrection,  but 
as  the  first-fruits  of  all  the  race  of  Adam ; 
and  who,  having  sanctified  Himself  to  be 
obedient  to  the  precept  and  to  endure  the 
penalty  of  the  law  of  God,  presented  Him- 
self unto  the  Father  as  the  earnest  of  an 
innumerable  multitude  of  His  brethren  being 
consecrated  to  God  through  Him."  Similar 
quotations  might  be  multiplied. 

The  second  point  in  the  argument  is,  that 
the  priest  was  to  "  wave  the  sheaf  before  the 
Lord  to  be  accepted  for  them"  [Lev.  xxiii. 
11),  prefiguring  God's  acceptance  in  behalf  of 
His  spiritual  Israel  of  the  sacrifice  of  His 
Son  as  their  Passover,  by  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  from  the  dead.  This  idea  is  presented 
in  the  "  Comprehensive  Commentary,"  Gen- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      75 

Jud,,"  p.  431:  "That  branch  of  the  Lord 
was  then  presented  to  Him,  in  virtue  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Himself,  the  Lamb  of  God;  and 
it  was  accepted  for  us."  It  was  a  beautiful 
figure.  The  wave-sheaf,  the  new  grain  from 
the  old  kernel  that  had  perished,  was  the 
most  striking  and  impressive  emblem  of 
the  resurrection  that  could  have  been  pre- 
sented." 

The  third  point  in  the  argument,  is  the  time. 
"  On  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath  the  priest 
shall  wave  it"  [Lev.  xxiii.  11).  On  the  part 
of  some  of  our  most  distinguished  commen- 
tators there  has  been  plainly  a  misunder- 
standing in  regard  to  it.  They  have  supposed 
the  Sabbath  here  spoken  of  to  have  been  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan,  the  "  day 
of  holy  convocation,"  or  "  high  Sabbath  "  of 
the  Passover  festival,  and  hence  that  the  sheaf 
was  to  be  waved  the  day  after,  that  is,  on  the 
16th.  Thus  Dr.  Smith  says  ("  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible"  vol.  iv.  p.  3487),  "On  the  second 
day  of  the  Passover,  a  sheaf  of  corn  in  the 
green  ear  was  to  be  waved."     Dr.  Scott  says, 


76      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

"  The  Sabbath  here  mentioned  was  the  day  of 
holy  convocation."  And  as  the  day  of  holy 
convocation  was  the  15th,  the  day  after,  when 
the  sheaf  was  to  be  waved,  according  to  his 
belief,  was  the  16th.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
commentators  so  eminent  should  have  been 
led  into  this  mistake.  The  text  is  so  plain,  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  impossible.  For 
we  read  {Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16)  "  And  ye  shall 
count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  Sab- 
bath, from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf 
of  the  wave-offering ;  seven  Sabbaths  shall  be 
complete.  Even  unto  the  morrow  after  the 
seventh  Sabbath  shall  ye  number  fifty  days ; 
and  ye  shall  offer  a  new  meat  offering  unto 
the  Lord."  Here  we  have  the  manner  of  the 
counting  of  the  days  until  the  feast  of  Pente- 
cost. From  "  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath," 
the  day  of  the  sheaf-offering,  seven  Sabbaths 
were  to  be  made  complete.  It  is  evident  that 
these  Sabbaths  cannot  have  been  "  days  of 
convocation,"  for  between  the  festivals  there 
were  no  "  high  Sabbaths,"  or  "  days  of  convo- 
cation."    The  seven  Sabbaths,  therefore,  that 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      77 

are  here  mentioned,  must  have  been  the  ordi- 
nary Jewish  Sabbaths,  or  Saturday ;  and  as 
the  Sabbath,  the  day  before  the  wave-offering, 
is  spoken  of  in  connection  with  them,  that 
also  must  have  been  the  ordinary  Sabbath. 
So  that  we  have  eight  weekly  Sabbaths  men- 
tioned in  succession.  The  first  is  the  Sabbath 
that  occurred  during  the  Passover  festival,  the 
day  immediately  preceding  that  of  the  offering 
of  the  first-fruits,  from  which  last,  the  count 
for  the  days  began ;  and  the  eighth  Sabbath  is 
the  day  preceding  the  Pentecost. 

Now,  as  the  Passover  was  determined  by  the 
moon,  it  did  not  always  fall  on  the  same  day 
of  the  week  ;  and,  consequently,  the  ordinary 
Sabbath  might,  or  might  not,  fall  on  the  15th 
of  the  month  Nisan :  and  it  was  only  at  rare 
intervals  that  the  day  after  the  Sabbath,  when 
the  sheaf-offering  was  presented,  would  fall  on 
the  16th.  The  Sabbath  before  the  day  of  the 
wave-offering,  then,  being  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
or  Saturday  (not  the  "  high  Sabbath "),  was 
always  the  seventh  day  of  the  week ;  and 
hence  the  day  after,  when  the  sheaf  of  first- 


78      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR  S  CRUCIFIXION. 

fruits  was  waved  before  the  Lord  as  the  type 
of  our  Saviour's  resurrection,  was  always  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  And  as  it  was  a  type 
of  our  Saviour's  resurrection,  and  was  always 
offered  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  it  signified 
that  our  Saviour  should  rise  from  the  grave 
on  that  day ;  and,  accordingly,  He,  the  great 
Antitype,  rose  on  the  day  after  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  Dr.  Scott,  in  alluding  to  this,  says, 
"  Thus  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  the  day 
of  offering  the  first-fruits,  on  which  day  Christ 
arose,  the  first-fruits  from  the  dead."  D'Oyly 
and  Mant,  in  their  "  Notes  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment," on  Matt,  xxviii.  1,  "As  it  began  to 
dawn  towards  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  etc., 
says,  "  The  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection 
was  that  on  which  it  was  before  designed  that 
He  should  rise.  Accordingly  on  this  day" 
(that  is,  the  day  after  the  Sabbath,  the  first 
day  of  the  week)  "  the  sheaf  of  their  first- 
fruits,  by  which  their  harvest  was  to  be  con- 
secrated, was  lifted  up  before  God  among  the 
Jews  {Lev.  xxiii.   10),  to  signify  that  Christ, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      79 

our  first-fruits,  should,  on  that  day,  be  raised 
up  by  God,  and  so  become  a  surety  to  us  of 
our  future  resurrection."  We  have  here,  then, 
another  evidence  of  the  exact  fulfilment  of  the 
type  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  Anti- 
type, on  the  day  prefigured  as  the  day  of  His 
resurrection,  by  the  waving  of  the  sheaf  of 
first-fruits  before  the  Lord  "to  be  accepted 
for  them." 

The  points  thus  far  presented,  when  taken 
together,  form  a  network  of  evidence,  going 
to  show  conclusively,  that,  as  our  Passover, 
our  Saviour  must  have  been  crucified  on  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan. 

To  put  it  more  concisely,  since  it  is  well 
known  that  the  paschal  lamb  was  a  type  of 
Christ ;  and  that  as  it  was  to  be  without 
blemish  so  Christ  was  without  blemish  ;  and 
that  Christ  was  crucified  at  the  time  of  the 
Passover  ;  and  that  as,  by  divine  appointment, 
the  paschal  lamb  was  taken  or  set  apart  for 
sacrifice  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan, 
so  Christ  was  anointed  for  His  burial,  or  set 
apart  for  sacrifice,  by  Mary,  on  the  tenth  day 


80      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

of  the  month  Nisan ;  and  that  he  died  at  the 
ninth  hour,  the  same  time  in  the  day  that 
the  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  killed ;  and  that 
the  Scriptures  were  fulfilled  that  (as  with  the 
paschal  lamb)  "  Not  a  bone  of  him  was 
broken  ;  "  and  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal 
lamb  ceased,  when  Christ  the  great  sacrifice 
was  offered;  and  that,  in  commemoration  of 
that  event,  the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  insti- 
tuted in  place  of  the  Passover ;  and  that  He 
arose  from  the  dead  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  the  day  signified  by  the  sheaf-offering, 
all  going  conclusively  to  show  that  He  died  as 
our  Passover,  and  that  in  Him  every  possible 
condition  pertaining  to  the  sacrifice  of  the 
paschal  lamb  was  fulfilled,  —  it  follows  neces- 
sarily that  the  one  other  condition  must  have 
been  fulfilled ;  that  He  must  have  been  cruci- 
fied on  the  day  that  the  paschal  lamb  was 
killed,  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan. 
This  is  further  evident  from  the  assertion 
of  our  Saviour,  recorded  in  Matt.  v.  17,  18, 
"  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law,   or   the   prophets  :    I   am   not   come   to 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.      81 

destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till 
all  be  fulfilled."  Now,  the  law  was,  that  the 
Passover  should  be  sacrificed  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan :  and  as  Christ  was 
our  Passover,  the  great  sacrifice,  of  which  the 
paschal  lamb  was  the  type,  and  to  which  it 
pointed  as  the  Lamb  of  God  which  in  the 
divine  purpose  was  "  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world ;  "  and  "  He  came,"  as  He  said, 
"to  fulfil  the  law,"  and  has  assured  us  that 
"  not  one  jot  or  tittle  shall  pass  from  it  till  all 
be  fulfilled,"  —  it  follows,  that  the  law  must 
have  been  fulfilled  in  His  death,  in  even  the 
minutest  particular,  and  hence,  that  He  must 
have  been  crucified  on  the  day  that  the 
paschal  lamb  was  to  be  killed,  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan. 

The  paschal  lamb  was  the  type,  and  there- 
fore was  figurative.  Its  value  as  a  religious 
offering  lay  only  in  its  significance,  and  it  was 
God's  design  in  the  Passover  to  call  attention 
to   Christ   as   the  great  Antitype.      Without 


82      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  offering  of  the 
paschal  lamb  would  have  been  meaningless. 
The  paschal  lamb  was  only  the  shadow, 
Christ  the  substance. 

Now,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  God 
would  have  been  so  particular  in  regard  to 
the  time  of  sacrificing  the  paschal  lamb  (the 
mere  shadow  of  that  which  was  to  come) ; 
that  He  should  have  required  it  to  be  sacri- 
ficed "  between  the  evenings "  on  the  "  four- 
teenth day  of  the  month  Nisan ; "  and  then, 
when  the  great  Antitype  was  killed  (with  ref- 
erence to  whom  the  Passover  was  instituted), 
He  would  have  permitted  that  requirement  to 
be  broken,  our  Saviour  to  have  been  crucified 
on  some  other  day  than  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  month  Nisan,  and  this  when,  as  we  have 
seen,  all  the  other  conditions  were  so  minutely 
and  distinctly  fulfilled  1  that  God  would  be 
strict  in  His  requirement  in  regard  to  the  less, 
and  allow  it  to  be  violated  in  the  greater? 
Believe  it  who  will,  who  can.  As  God,  He 
foresaw  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  when  He 
instituted  the  Passover ;   and  surely  He  could 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.      83 

so  arrange,  or,  at  the  least,  take  advantage  of 
circumstances,  as  to  secure  the  accomplish- 
ment of  His  designs.  To  claim  otherwise 
would  be  to  make  Him  less  than  God. 

Christ,  then,  as  our  Passover,  must  have 
been  crucified  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
Jewish  month  Nisan;  and  His  crucifixion  is  an 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  divine  revelation,  the 
Jews  thus  being  unwittingly  made  the  instru- 
ments of  preserving  the  symbolism  of  that 
paschal  lamb,  of  which  Christ  was  the  Anti- 
type, and  of  fulfilling,  even  to  the  minutest 
particular,  the  predictions  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament  concerning  Him. 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  day  that  the 
Passover  lamb  was  slain,  we  quote  the  re- 
marks of  Byle.  He  says,  in  his  "  Expository 
Thoughts  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark,"  p.  303, 
"  We  ought  to  mark  the  intentional  connec- 
tion between  the  time  of  the  Jewish  Passover 
and  the  time  of  Christ's  death.  We  cannot 
doubt  for  a  moment  that  it  was  not  by 
chance,  but   by   God's    providential   appoint- 


84      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

merit,  that  our  Lord  was  crucified  in  the  Pass- 
over week,  and  on  the  very  day  that  the 
Passover  lamb  was  slain.  It  was  meant  to 
draw  the  attention  of  the  Jewish  nation  to 
Him  as  the  true  lamb  of  God.  It  was  meant 
to  bring  to  their  minds  the  true  object  and 
purpose  of  His  death.  Every  sacrifice,  no 
doubt,  was  intended  to  point  the  Jew  onward 
to  the  one  great  sacrifice  for  sin  which  Christ 
offered ;  but  none,  certainly,  was  so  striking  a 
figure  and  type  of  our  Lord's  sacrifice  as  the 
slaying  of  the  Passover  lamb.  It  was  pre- 
eminently an  ordinance  which  was  a  school- 
master unto  Christ  ( Gal.  in.  24).  Never  was 
there  a  type  so  full  of  meaning  in  the  whole 
circle  of  Jewish  ceremonies  as  the  Passover 
was  at  its  original  institution. 

"  Did  the  Passover  remind  the  Jew  of  the 
marvellous  deliverance  of  his  forefathers  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt  when  God  slew  the 
first-born]  No  doubt  it  did.  But  it  was 
also  meant  to  be  a  sign  to  him  of  the  far 
greater  redemption  and  deliverance  from  the 
bondage  of  sin,  which  was  to  be  brought 
in  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.      85 

"  Did  the  Passover  remind  the  Jew,  that,  by 
the  death  of  an  innocent  lamb,  the  families 
of  his  forefathers  were  once  exempted  from 
the  death  of  their  first-born?  No  doubt  it 
did.  But  it  was  also  meant  to  teach  him  the 
far  higher  truth,  that  the  death  of  Christ  on 
the  cross  was  to  be  the  life  of  the  world. 

"  Did  the  Passover  remind  the  Jew  that 
the  sprinkling  of  blood  on  the  door-posts  of 
his  forefathers'  houses  preserved  them  from 
the  sword  of  the  destroying  angel?  No 
doubt  it  did.  But  it  was  also  meant  to  show 
him  the  far  more  important  doctrine,  that 
Christ's  blood  sprinkled  on  man's  conscience  " 
(Heb.  x.  22)  "  cleanses  it  from  all  stain  of 
guilt,  and  makes  him  safe  from  the  wrath  to 
come. 

"  Did  the  Passover  remind  the  Jew  that 
none  of  his  forefathers  were  safe  from  the  de- 
stroying angel,  in  the  night  when  he  slew  the 
first-born,  unless  he  actually  ate  of  the  slain 
lamb  ?  No  doubt  it  did.  But  it  was  meant 
to  guide  his  mind  to  the  far  higher  lesson, 
that    all    who   would    receive    benefit    from 


86      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Christ's  atonement  mnst  actually  feed  upon 
Him  by  faith,  and  receive  Him  into  their 
hearts. 

"  Let  us  call  these  things  to  mind,  and 
weigh  them  well.  We  shall  then  see  a  pecu- 
liar fitness  and  beauty  in  the  time  appointed  by 
God  for  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ's  death  on  the 
cross." 

As  yet  further  evidence  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month  Nisan,  we  have,  — 

1.  The  testimony  of  the  Jews. 

It  is  affirmed  in  the  Talmud,  that  Jesus, 
"  on  the  day  before  the  Passover,  was  stoned 
and  hung ; "  which,  as  the  Passover  was  eaten 
on  the  15th,  must  have  been  on  the  14th  of 
the  month  Nisan. 

Again,  it  is  said  in  the  "  Gem&r a," (SanJiedi'im, 
vi.  2),  that  our  Lord,  having  vainly  endeavored 
during  forty  days  to  find  an  advocate,  was 
sentenced,  and,  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  stoned, 
and  afterwards  hanged.  Other  rabbinical  au- 
thorities countenance  the  statement,  that 
Christ  was  executed  on  the  14th  of  the  month 
(see  Jost,  "  Judenth."  i.  404). 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      87 

Certainly  it  would  seem  that  these  rabbinical 
authorities,  being  Jews,  and  living  so  near  the 
time  of  the  crucifixion,  would  be  competent 
witnesses.  It  has,  however,  been  objected 
that  then  testimony  is  worthless,  because  (as 
it  is  claimed)  "  the  difficulty  of  the  Gospel 
narratives  had  been  perceived  long  before 
these  statements  could  have  been  written; 
and  as  the  two  opposite  opinions  on  the  chief 
question  "  (the  one  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  the  14th,  and  the  other  that  He  was 
crucified  on  the  15th,  of  the  month  Nisan) 
"  were  both  current,  the  Jewish  writers  might 
easily  have  taken  the  one  or  the  other" 
("  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible"  vol.  Hi.  p. 
2352,  also  "  Biblical,  Theological,  and  Ecclesias- 
tical Cyclopaedia"  M'Clintock  and  Strong,  vol. 
vii.). 

This  objection  is  not  well  taken.  The  fact 
that  the  two  opposite  opinions  concerning  the 
day  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  were  both 
current  before  the  statements  were  written,  so 
far  from  invalidating  the  Jewish  testimony, 
would  have  the  contrary  effect,  and  is  a  strong 


88      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

evidence  in  its  favor.  The  Jewish  rabbins  had 
no  interest  in  reconciling  the  New  Testament 
narratives.  They  did  not  accept  Christ  as  the 
Saviour,  and,  consequently,  would  have  scouted 
the  idea  that  He  died  as  the  great  Antitype  of 
the  Passover ;  and  therefore,  if  they  had  had 
no  definite  knowledge  concerning  the  time  of 
His  death,  if,  as  it  is  claimed,  they  might 
easily  have  taken  up  the  one  or  the  other 
opinion,  it  is  plainly  to  be  seen  that  Jewish 
prejudice  would  have  impelled  them  to  say 
that  Christ  was  executed  on  the  15th  of 
Nisan  rather  than  on  the  fourteenth,  the  day 
when  the  paschal  lamb  was  killed.  Believing 
Christ  to  have  been  an  impostor,  they  would 
scarcely  have  been  disposed  (with  evidence, 
much  less  without)  to  state  that  Christ  died 
on  the  14th;  for  they  were  thus  showing  that 
He  was  not  an  impostor,  but  the  true  Anti- 
type of  the  Passover,  and  virtually  condemn- 
ing themselves  for  not  believing  on  Him. 
Again,  if  they  had  had  no  certain  knowledge 
of  the  day  of  His  death,  there  would  not 
have  been  such  an  agreement.     If,  as  it  is 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      89 

claimed,  they  might  easily  have  adopted 
either  view  (aside  from  Jewish  prejudice, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  would  have  impelled 
them  to  place  His  execution  on  the  loth  and 
not  on  the  14th),  it  is  altogether  probable  that 
some  wo  aid  have  adopted  one  view,  and  some 
the  other.  The  perfect  agreement,  therefore, 
in  the  different  accounts,  especially  when  we 
consider  that  they  assert  that  He  died  on  the 
14th,  shows  conclusively  that  their  statements 
were  based  on  evidence. 

It  has  also  been  said,  that  "  this  seems  to 
be  a  case  in  which  numbers  do  not  add  to  the 
weight  of  the  testimony  "  (see  "  Smith's  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible,"  foot-notes,  vol.  Hi.  p. 
2352).  This  is  a  very  singular  statement, 
easily  made,  but  incapable  of  proof.  If  there 
had  been  a  disagreement  among  them,  the 
statement  might  be  admitted;  but  even  then 
the  weight  of  evidence,  aside  from  any  other 
determining  circumstance,  would  have  rested 
with  the  majority.  But  as  the  same  date,  the 
14th,  is  given,  numbers  do  add  to  the  weight 
of  the  testimony,  because  of  then*  agreement. 


90      THE  DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

As  further  evidence  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  we  have,  — 

2.  The  testimony  of  the  Greek  church,  of 
some  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  of  distin- 
guished commentators  (see  "  Introductory"  pp. 
15-19).  In  addition  to  the  names  there  given, 
the  attention  of  the  reader  is  called  to  the 
following :  — 

Eyle  says,  in  his  "  Expository  Thoughts  on 
the  Gospel  of  Mark,"  p.  303,  "  Our  Lord  was 
crucified  in  the  Passover  week,  and  on  the 
very  day  that  the  Passover  lamb  was  slain ; " 
and  that  is  clearly  shown  in  Exod.  xii.  6  to 
have  been  on  the  14th. 

T.  M.  Preble,  in  his  article,  "  Types  relat- 
ing to  the  Sabbath,  the  Wave  Sheaf  and  the 
Wave  Loaves,"  says,  "  Christ  was  crucified  on 
the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  or  moon, 
the  day  the  paschal  lamb  was  killed." 

The  writer  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra," 
July,  1871,  says,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  argu- 
ment, p.  484,  "  According  to  all  the  four 
Gospels,  the  day  of  the  Lord's  death  was  the 
7taQctaitsvri,  the  14th  of  Nisan;"  though  he  claims 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.        91 

erroneously,  as  we  have  shown,  that  the  14th 
fell  on  Friday. 

3.  The  hurried  burial  of  our  Saviour,  that 
the  bodies  might  not  remain  on  the  cross  on 
the  "  high  Sabbath"  of  the  festival  {John  xix. 
31),  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  loth  of 
Nisan,  shows  that  the  day  on  which  Christ 
was  crucified  (the  day  preceding  the  "  high 
Sabbath,"  the  15th)  was  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  month  Nisan. 

4.  Our  Saviour  cannot  have  been  crucified 
on  the  loth ;  for  that,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a 
Sabbath,  a  "  day  of  holy  convocation  in  which 
no  servile  work  was  to  be  done,"  and  "  more 
sacred  than  an  ordinary  Sabbath  :  so  that  if 
the  14th  of  Nisan  happened  to  fall  on  Satur- 
day, the  ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath,  that  Sab- 
bath might  be  made  a  day  of  preparation  for 
it."  Knowing  how  sacredly  the  Jews  re- 
garded and  observed  the  ordinary  Sabbath ; 
and  that  they  charged  the  Saviour  with 
breaking  it,  because  He  had  healed  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that 
they  would  have  taken  Him  prisoner,  brought 


92       THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

Him  before  the  high  priest  Caiaphas,  and 
tried  Him  before  the  Sanhedrim,  spit  upon 
Him,  buffeted  Him,  crowned  Him  with  thorns, 
mocked  Him,  and  then  led  Him  away  to 
Pilate  to  be  condemned  and  crucified,  on 
Friday,  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan, 
the  "great"  or  "high  Sabbath"  of  the  fes- 
tival. In  further  proof  of  this,  Tholuck 
says,  in  his  "  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of 
John,"  pp.  314,  315,  "  Movers,  for  the  most 
part,  indeed,  after  Lightfoot,  has  collected 
most  diligently  the  various  examples.  When, 
now,  he  shows  from  the  Talmud,  that  it  was 
forbidden  on  the  Sabbath  to  bear  arms,  to 
hold  court,  to  carry  wood,  to  go  through  the 
streets  with  spices ;  and  when  we  see  the 
servants  of  the  high  priest,  on  the  night  in 
which  our  Saviour  was  betrayed,  bearing 
arms ;  the  high  priest  sitting  in  judgment ; 
the  condemned  persons  bearing  the  cross ; 
Nicodemus  bringing  no  less  than  one  hundred 
pounds  of  spice,  —  who  can  persuade  himself 
that  all  this  occurred  on  the  first  day  of  the 
high  festival  1  " 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.        93 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that 
the  "high  Sabbath"  of  the  festival,  or  "day 
of  holy  convocation,"  was  less  sacred  than  the 
ordinary  Sabbath;  whereas,  we  have  shown, 
from  the  testimony  of  the  writer  in  the 
"  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  July,  1871,  that  it  was 
the  reverse,  being  so  much  more  sacred  than 
the  ordinary  Sabbath,  that,  when  the  ordinary 
Sabbath  fell  on  the  day  before,  it  might  be 
made  a  day  of  preparation  for  it.  But  be- 
cause it  is  said,  in  Exod.  xii.  16,  "  No  manner 
of  work  shall  be  done  in  them,  save  that  which 
every  man  must  eat,"  the  claim  is  set  up,  that, 
on  the  first  and  last  days  of  the  Passover, 
permission  was  given  to  prepare  food,  which, 
it  is  claimed,  was  not  allowed  on  the  ordinary 
Sabbath. 

In  answer  to  this,  we  say.  that,  in  other 
passages  of  Scripture,  the  language  in  regard 
to  the  "  days  of  holy  convocation,"  and  in 
regard  to  the  ordinary  Sabbath,  is  similar. 
Compare  Lev.  xxiii.  7  ;  Num.  xxviii.  18,  25  ; 
with  Exod.  xx.  10;  xxxi.  14,  15;  xxxv.  2. 
If  it  be  said  that  the  word  "servile"  is  used 


94      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

in  the  prohibition  in  regard  to  the  "  days  of 
holy  convocation,"  and  is  not  used  in  regard 
to  the  ordinary  Sabbath,  we  refer  the  reader 
to  the  following  passages,  which  have  refer- 
ence to  "  days  of  holy  convocation,"  in  which 
the  word  "servile"  is  omitted,  and  the  lan- 
guage used  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  which 
is  used  in  regard  to  the  ordinary  Sabbath. 
"  Ye  shall  do  no  work  in  that  same  day " 
(Lev.  xxiii.  28).  "  Ye  shall  do  no  manner 
of  work"  (Lev.  xxiii.  31).  It  will  be  no- 
ticed here  that  the  command  is  absolute  and 
exclusive,  —  "no  manner  of  work  ;  "  and  were 
it  not  for  the  permission  given  in  Exod.  xii. 
16,  "  Save  that  which  every  man  must  eat,"  we 
should  understand  from  it  that  every  kind  of 
work  was  forbidden.  The  command  in  every 
sense  is  as  strict  and  as  positive  as  can  be 
found  anywhere  in  regard  to  the  ordinary  Sab- 
bath. Let  it  also  be  borne  in  mind,  that, 
though  commands  in  regard  to  the  "  days  of 
convocation "  are  given  elsewhere,  the  only 
place  in  which  the  expression,  "  Save  that 
which  every  man  must  eat,"  is  found,  is  Exod. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      95 

xii.  16  ;  and  yet,  though  not  mentioned  in  the 
other  passages,  it  must  evidently  have  been 
understood :   and  so,  though  not  mentioned  in 
the  commands  in  regard  to  the  ordinary  Sab- 
bath, it  must  have  been  understood ;  for  the 
Jews  ate   on    the  Sabbath  as  on  other  days. 
They  were  not  allowed  to  kindle  a  fire  for  the 
preparation  of  food  on  the  ordinary  Sabbath 
(Exod.  xxxv.  3  ;  Num.  xv.  e32-36) ;  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  allowed 
to  do  it  on  the  "  days  of  holy  convocation,"  or 
"  high  Sabbaths  "  of  the  festival.     The  com- 
mand applied  in  the  one  case  equally  as  in 
the    other.     The    command  that  they  should 
"do  no  work,  save  that  which  every  man  must 
eat,"  had  reference  to    the  bringing   of    the 
food  together,  and  setting  it  in  order  upon  the 
table  ;    to  preparing  or  arranging   the    food, 
but  not  cooking  it;  for  this  necessary  arran- 
ging  of    the   food   would   involve    a    certain 
amount  of  work :  and  it  is  clear  that  this  was 
permitted  on  the  ordinary  Sabbath.     Indeed, 
it  was  customary  for  them  to  give  feasts  and 
to  entertain  guests  on  the  Sabbath  day ;  for  we 


96      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

read  (Luke  adv.  1)  that  our  Lord  dined  with 
a  chief  Pharisee  on  the  Sabbath.  That  it 
was  a  feast  for  invited  guests  is  evident  from 
the  Saviour  and  others  being  present,  as  will 
be  seen  from  the  third  verse :  "  For  Jesus 
answering  spake  unto  the  lawyers  and  Phari- 
sees," showing  plainly  that  a  company  was 
present.  Now,  when  we  consider  that  this 
was  at  the  house  of  a  chief  Pharisee,  and 
that  the  Pharisees  were  exceedingly  strict  in 
the  outward  performance  of  religious  duty, 
and  in  observing  all  the  ordinances  and  com- 
mandments of  the  law,  and  that  Christ  (who, 
as  God,  was  the  giver  of  the  law,  and  the 
embodiment  of  divine  purity)  did  not  rebuke 
the  Pharisee,  but  gave  the  sanction  of  His 
authority  by  gracing  the  occasion  with  His 
presence,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that 
there  was  in  it  no  violation  of  the  Jewish  law, 
and  therefore  that  it  must  have  been  per- 
mitted. And  hence  it  follows,  that,  as  the 
Jews  were  permitted  to  give  entertainment  on 
the  Sabbath  to  invited  guests,  it  must  have 
been  lawful  for  them  to  do  the  work  necessary 
to  arrange  the  food. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.      97 

Further,  we  read  [Matt.  xii.  1-8  ;  Mark  ii. 
23-28  ;  Luke  vi.  1-5),  that,  when  the  Saviour 
and  His  disciples  plucked  the  ears  of  corn 
and  did  eat  on  the  Sabbath  day,  the  Phari- 
sees charged  Him  with  doing  that  which 
was  not  lawful,  evidently,  because  they  re- 
garded the  act  as  a  species  of  reaping,  which 
was  forbidden  (Exod.  xxxiv.  21).  But  the 
answer  of  Jesus  on  that  occasion,  shows  that 
even  that  was  permitted  in  case  of  necessity 
(for  the  reason  that  the  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath) ;  that 
in  extreme  cases  it  was  not  violating  the  spirit 
of  the  divine  command  in  regard  to  the  Sab- 
bath, to  procure  food  even,  on  the  Sabbath 
day.  Again,  it  was  lawful,  on  the  ordinary 
Sabbath,  to  perform  the  temple  services,  such 
as  preparing  the  sacrifices  {see  Num.  xxviii.  9, 
10 ;  Matt.  xii.  5).  It  was  lawful  also  to  per- 
form circumcision  on  that  day  [John  vii.  23). 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  ordinary  Jewish 
Sabbath  was  not  more  sacred  than  the  "  high" 
Sabbath  of  the  Passover. 

Again  (because  there  is  a  passage  in  the 


98      THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

"  Mishna  "  (  Sanhedrim ,  x.  4)  in  which  it  is 
commanded  that  an  elder  not  submitting  to 
the  voice  of  the  Sanhedrim  should  be  kept  at 
Jerusalem  till  one  of  the  three  great  festivals, 
and  then  executed,  in  accordance  with  Deut. 
xvii.  12,  13),  an  attempt  has  been  made  to 
show  that  our  Saviour  may  have  been  cruci- 
fied on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  the  "  day  of  holy 
convocation." 

It  will  be  noticed,  that,  in  the  passage 
referred  to,  no  particular  day  of  the  feast  is 
specified  on  which  this  execution  should  take 
place ;  and,  because  no  particular  day  is  men- 
tioned, it  has  been  claimed  that  it  may  have 
been  on  the  "  day  of  holy  convocation."  This 
is  the  language  of  those  who  advance  this 
argument :  "  Nothing  is  said  to  lead  us  to 
infer  that  the  execution  could  not  take  place 
on  one  of  the  "  days  of  holy  convocation " 
[see  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible"  vol.  Hi. 
p.  2351 ;  also  "  Biblical,  Theological,  and  Eccle- 
siastical Cyclopaedia,"  M'Clintock  and  Strong, 
vol.  vii.).  The  inference  derived  from  this  is 
simply  negative,  and  is  an  exceedingly  slender 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.      99 

foundation  on  which  to  base  an  argument. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  in  answer  to  it,  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  saying  that  the 
execution  should  not  take  place  on  the  "  high 
Sabbath "  of  the  festival.  That  would  be 
understood.  From  what  we  know  of  the 
sacredness  with  which  the  Jews  regarded 
even  the  ordinary  Sabbath,  much  more  the 
"  high  "  Sabbath  of  the  festival,  in  which,  by 
the  divine  command,  "  No  servile  work  was  to 
be  done,"  it  must  have  been  understood  neces- 
sarily, that  the  execution  should  take  place, 
not  on  the  "  high  "  Sabbath,  but  on  one  of  the 
ordinary  week-days  of  the  festival.  It  will 
be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  attempted  argu- 
ment from  the  ;i  Mishna"  is  fallacious. 

But  it  is  said  again  (Smith's  "  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible"  vol.  Hi.  p.  2351),  "  We  have  better 
proof  than  either  the  '  Mishna '  or  the  '  Ge- 
mara '  can  afford,  that  the  Jews  did  not  hesi- 
tate, in  the  time  of  the  Roman  domination,  to 
carry  arms  and  to  apprehend  a  prisoner  on  a 
solemn  feast-day.  We  find  them  at  the  Feast 
of   Tabernacles     on  the    '  great  day    of    the 


100     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

feast '  sending  out  officers  to  take  our  Lord, 
and  rebuking  them  for  not  bringing  Him 
{John  vii.  32-45).  St.  Peter  also  was  seized 
during  the  Passover  (Acts  xii.  3,  4)."  And  yet 
again,  "  The  reason  alleged  by  the  rulers  for 
not  apprehending  Jesus  was  not  the  sanctity 
of  the  festival,  but  the  fear  of  an  uproar 
among  the  multitude  which  was  assembled 
(Matt.  xxvi.  5)."  We  have  quoted  the  argu- 
ment in  full,  that,  in  replying  to  it,  the  reader 
may  see  we  are  doing  it  no  injustice. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  all  that  is  claimed 
here  is,  that  "  the  Jews  did  not  hesitate  to 
carry  arms  and  to  apprehend  a  prisoner  on  a 
solemn  feast-day,"  which  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  trying  a  prisoner,  condemning  and 
crucifying  him,  on  that  day ;  and,  if  the  former 
could  be  proved,  it  would  by  no  means  prove 
the  latter.  But  it  is  not  proved.  The  argu- 
ment from  John  vii.  32-48  is  not  conclusive. 
John  does  not  say  that  they  sent  the  officers 
to  arrest  him  on  the  "  great "  day  of  the  feast. 
That  it  was  during  the  feast  is  evident,  but 
the  day  is  not  specified.     From  John  vii.  30 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     101 

it  would  appear  that  they  sought  to  take  Him, 
and  from  John  vii.  32  that  they  sent  the  offi- 
cers for  that  purpose,  some  time  (a  day,  or  it 
may  have  been  several  days)  before. 

And  in  Acts  xii.  3,  4,  nothing  is  said  about 
Peter's  having  been  arrested  on  the  feast-day. 
It  reads,  "  Then  were  the  days  of  unleavened 
bread,"  implying  simply  that  he  was  arrested 
during  the  festival.  From  aught  that  appears, 
it  may  have  been  on  any  one  of  the  days. 

But,  if  we  admit  all  that  is  claimed,  it  fur- 
nishes us  with  no  evidence  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  the  "  high  "  Sabbath  of  the 
festival. 

Probably  (though  we  have  no  evidence  of 
it)  they  did  arrest  criminals,  if  necessary,  on 
the  "  high  "  Sabbaths  of  the  festivals ;  and  it 
is  also  probable  that  they  apprehended  crimi- 
nals, if  necessary,  on  the  ordinary  Sabbath. 
We  infer  this  from  what  we  know  to  be  cus- 
tomary among  other  nations.  And,  if  they 
arrested  criminals,  the  officers  must  have 
carried  arms ;  as  arms  would  be  necessary  for 
their  protection  in  dealing  with  such  desper- 


102     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

ate  characters.  It  is  customary,  under  all 
governments,  if  necessary,  to  apprehend  those 
who  are  guilty  of  high  crimes  on  the  Sabbath 
day.  Otherwise  they  might  have  opportunity 
to  escape.  But,  because,  in  certain  instances, 
men  are  arrested  on  the  Sabbath,  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  the  courts  are  held,  and 
they  are  tried,  condemned,  and  executed,  on 
the  Sabbath.  Nor  does  it  follow,  because 
there  is  a  possibility  that  the  Jews  may 
have  apprehended  criminals  on  the  "  high " 
Sabbaths  of  the  festivals,  that  they  spit  upon 
Jesus,  buffeted,  scourged,  and  mocked  Him, 
crowned  Him  with  thorns,  tried  Him,  con- 
demned Him,  bore  His  cross,  and  crucified 
Him,  on  that  day.  Knowing  how  strictly  they 
observed  it,  we  cannot  conceive  it  possible. 

5.  As  a  certain  writer  has  said,  "  Another 
passage  (Luke  xxiii.  26)  shows  that  the  15th 
of  Nisan  cannot  have  been  the  day  on  which 
our  Saviour  was  crucified.  We  read  there 
that  Simon,  a  Cyrenian,  was  coming  out  of  the 
field  (an  ay  gov)  ^  when  he  was  forced  to  bear  the 
cross.     Now,  a  man  returning  from  a  walk  is 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     103 

not  said  to  be  coming  an  dyQov.  The  expres- 
sion means,  rather,  '  coming  from  his  labor : ' 
and  no  one  ventured  to  perform  field-labor  on 
the  '  high  '  Sabbath  of  the  Passover ;  though 
he  might  do  so  on  the  14th,  the  day  of  prepa- 
ration." 

6.  The  day  on  which  our  Saviour  was  cru- 
cified is  called  the  "  day  of  preparation." 
That  it  was  not  the  day  of  preparation  for 
Saturday,  the  ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath,  is  evi- 
dent ;  because,  while  John  speaks  of  it  as  the 
"  day  of  preparation  for  the  Sabbath,"  he  also 
speaks  of  it  {John  xix.  14)  as  the  "  day  of 
preparation  for  the  Passover."  n»  8e  aaqaGxevri 
rov  Ttdoxa,  and  the  term  "  Passover,"  here  must 
apply  to  the  Passover  Supper,  which  was 
eaten  on  the  beginning  of  the  15th  of  Nisan, 
and  not  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  that  occurred 
during  the  Passover  festival.  The  evangelists, 
then,  in  speaking  of  the  day  on  which  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  as  the  "  day  of  prepa- 
ration for  the  Sabbath,"  did  not  mean  the  day 
of  preparation  for  the  ordinary  Sabbath,  but 
the  day  of  preparation  for  the  "high"  Sab- 


104     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

bath  of  the  festival,  the  "  day  of  holy  convo- 
cation," the  15th.  To  quote  the  language  of 
another  ("  Bibliotheca  Sacra"  July,  1871,  p. 
473),  "  There  is  no  explaining  away  the  fact 
that  the  rabbinical  noan  any,  the  14th  of  Nisan, 
is  here  meant."  Unless  we  are  ready  to 
charge  the  evangelist  with  using  expressions 
which  could  not  but  lead  his  readers  astray, 
we  must  assume  that  he  placed  the  crucifixion 
on  the  14th  of  Nisan."  And  the  writer  adds, 
"  John  xviii.  28,  where  we  read,  '  Then  led 
they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  unto  the  hall  of  judg- 
ment :  and  it  was  early ;  and  they  themselves 
went  not  into  the  judgment  hall,  lest  they 
should  be  defiled ;  but  that  they  might  eat  the 
Passover,'  wa  ptj  [uavdojaiv  aXV  ha  cpdyoooi  to  ndoia, 
leads  to  the  same  conclusion." 

Again,  he  says,  p.  474,  "  The  Jews  avoided 
the  prsetorium,  in  order  that  they  might  be 
able  to  eat  the  paschal  lamb  in  the  approach- 
ing night,  which  began  the  15th  of  Nisan. 
Consequently  the  day  on  which  they  observed 
such  precaution  was  the  14th,  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion   of   Christ."     And  he  adds,  "  Ac- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     105 

cording  to  John,  Jesns  was  condemned  (xviii. 
29),  crucified  {xix.  14),  and  buried  (pcix.  31, 
42)  on  the  14th  of  Nisan." 

The  eating  of  the  Passover,  in  John  xviii. 
28,  was  the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and 
not  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  which  was 
to  be  observed  on  each  of  the  seven  days  of 
the  Passover  festival.  This  is  determined 
plainly  by  the  use  of  the  word  defiled  ("  lest 
they  should  be  defiled ;  but  that  they  might  eat 
the  Passover  "),  as  will  be  seen  from  the  obvi- 
ous fact  that  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
was  to  be  observed  by  all  the  Jews,  clean  or 
unclean. 

The  partaking  of  it  did  not  depend  on 
Levitical  purity;  for  the  impure  not  only 
might,  but  must  partake  of  unleavened  bread 
during  those  days.  To  eat  other  bread  was 
forbidden,  on  pain  of  being  destroyed  from 
among  the  people  {Eocod.  xii.  15).  The  use 
of  the  word  defiled ',  therefore,  in  this  passage, 
makes  it  certain  that  the  Passover  referred 
to  was  a  Passover  meal  which  was  allowed 
only  to  the  pure,  which  can  have  been  no 


106     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

other  than  the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb  ; 
and,  as  it  was  always  eaten  on  the  beginning 
of  the  15th,  and  they  had  not  eaten  it  on  the 
day  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  it  follows, 
necessarily,  that  He  must  have  been  crucified 
on  the  14th,  and  that  the  day  of  His  cruci- 
fixion was  the  preparation  for  the  Passover, 
which  was  eaten  the  following  evening,  the 
15th,  and  cannot  have  been  the  preparation 
for  the  ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday. 
But  here  we  are  met  with  an  objection.  It 
was  in  the  morning  when  they  would  not  go 
into  Pilate's  judgment-hall,  the  prsetorium, 
"  lest  they  should  be  defiled,  but  that  they 
might  eat  the  Passover ; "  and  the  defilement 
thus  contracted  would  cease  at  evening  [Lev. 
xxii.  5,  6).  Therefore  it  is  said,  that  the 
Passover  referred  to,  which  the  defilement 
contracted  by  going  into  the  house  of  a 
heathen  would  prevent  them  from  eating, 
must  have  been  a  Passover  which  was  to  be 
eaten  on  that  day ;  and  as  the  paschal  lamb 
was  not  eaten  until  the  even,  and  after  the 
following   day   had   commenced,   this    cannot 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     107 

have  been  the  Passover  to  eat  which,  they 
refrained  from  defiling  themselves.  This  ob- 
jection, to  one  who  has  given  bnt  little  atten- 
tion to  the  subject,  would  appear  to  be  a  strong 
one. 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  defilement 
spoken  of,  cannot  have  had  reference  to  the 
ordinary  Passover  meal,  or  the  eating  of  un- 
leavened bread  ;  for  the  reason,  that,  if  a  person 
during  any  of  the  seven  days  of  the  Passover 
should  become  unclean,  he  was,  nevertheless, 
required  to  eat  of  it,  and  was  forbidden  to  eat 
leavened  bread  during  any  of  the  days  of  the 
Passover,  on  the  penalty  of  being  cut  off  from 
his  people.  Causes  of  uncleanness  occurred 
during  the  Passover  festival,  as  at  other  times  ; 
and  there  was  not  only  a  liability  of  it,  but 
uncleanness  must  have  actually  occurred  in 
many  instances.  The  case,  therefore,  is  not 
hypothetical ;  and  it  follows  necessarily,  that, 
since  even  the  unclean  were  to  eat  of  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread,  which  was  con- 
tinued through  the  week  of  the  Passover,  the 
defilement  which  they  feared  to  contract,  "  but 


108     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

that  they  might  eat  the  Passover,"  cannot  have 
had  any  reference  to  that,  but  must  have 
referred  in  some  sense  to  the  Passover  supper, 
or  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  which  occurred 
on  the  evening  of  the  15th  of  Nisan.  The 
sense  in  which  it  applies,  is  obvious. 

The  reader  is  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  pas- 
chal lamb  was  to  be  killed  "  between  the  two 
evenings;"  that  is,  between  three  and  five 
o'clock  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan,  and  that  it  was  in  the  morning  of  that 
day,  the  14th,  when  they  would  not  go  into 
the  preetorium,  "  lest  they  should  be  defiled." 
As  this  was  in  the  morning,  and  the  lamb  was 
to  be  slain  in  the  afternoon,  the  reason  why 
they  would  not  defile  themselves  is  apparent. 
They  would  have  become  unclean,  and  conse- 
quently could  not  have  sacrificed  it  (Lev.  xxii. 
3.  See  also  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible" 
vol.  iv.  p.  3350).  And,  not  being  permitted  to 
sacrifice  it,  they  could  not  have  eaten  it  in  the 
evening,  or  on  the  beginning  of  the  15th  of 
Nisan,  but  would  have  been  required  to  wait 
until  the  "  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month  " 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     109 

{Num.  ix.  6-12).  The  argument,  therefore, 
is  conclusive,  that  the  "  day  of  preparation," 
on  which  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  and  on 
the  morning  of  which  they  would  not  go  into 
the  judgment-hall,  "  lest  they  be  defiled,"  was 
not  the  day  of  preparation  for  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  but,  as  it  reads,  "  the 
day  of  preparation  for  the  Passover  ;  "  that  is, 
the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan,  when 
the  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  killed. 

Further  argument  to  show  that  the  "  day 
of  preparation,"  on  which  our  Saviour  was 
crucified,  was  the  day  of  preparation  for  the 
Passover,  and  not  the  day  of  preparation  for 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  is  unnecessary  ;  and  yet  I 
cannot  forbear  alluding  in  this  connection  to 
Matt,  xxvii.  62-61,  "  Now  the  next  day  that 
followed  the  day  of  the  preparation,"  etc.  It 
will  be  seen  from  the  context,  that  the  coming 
of  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  to  Pilate,  to 
request  that  the  sepulchre  be  made  sure,  was 
after  our  Saviour  had  been  laid  in  the  sep- 
ulchre ;  and  we  have  shown  {chap.  iv.  pp. 
126-137)  that  our  Saviour  was  not  laid  in  the 


110     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

grave  until  after  six  o'clock,  which  was  the 
beginning  of  the  day  after  that  on  which  He 
was  crucified.  So  that  the  coming  of  the 
chief  priests  and  Pharisees  to  Pilate,  which, 
according  to  Matthew,  was  "  the  next  day  that 
followed  the  day  of  preparation,"  must  have 
been  on  the  day  after  that  on  which  our 
Saviour  was  crucified. 

Now,  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  Sabbath 
was  more  important  than  the  day  of  prepara- 
tion for  it ;  and  if  the  day  on  which  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  had  been  the  day  of 
preparation  for  the  Sabbath,  the  apostle,  in- 
stead of  saying,  "  the  next  day  that  followed 
the  day  of  preparation,"  would,  in  all  proba- 
bility, have  said,  "  the  next  day,  the  Sabbath," 
making  the  Sabbath  the  more  prominent, 
because  it  would  have  been  the  more  impor- 
tant ;  but  it  being  the  day  of  preparation  for 
the  Passover,  the  day  on  which  the  paschal 
lamb  was  killed,  he  naturally  makes  it  em- 
phatic, no  doubt  for  this  reason :  that  it  might 
be  clearly  seen  that  Christ,  as  our  Passover, 
died  on  the  "  day  of  preparation,"  the  day  that 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     Ill 

the  paschal  lamb  was  killed;  that  the  type 
was  fulfilled  in  the  Antitype. 

7.  There  is  yet  another  passage  in  evidence 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th  of 
Nisan;  viz.,  "After  two  days  was  the  feast 
of  the  Passover,  and  of  unleavened  bread : 
and  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  sought 
how  they  might  take  Him  by  craft,  and  put 
Him  to  death.  But  they  said,  Not  on  the  feast 
day,  lest  there  be  an  uproar  of  the  people " 
(Mark  xiv.  1,  2). 

The  writer  in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra," 
July,  1871,  whom  I  have  previously  quoted, 
in  commenting  on  this  passage,  says  (p.  481), 
"  If  the  wish  of  the  chief  priests,  that  it 
should  not  fall  on  the  feast-day,  had  not  been 
fulfilled,  and  Jesus  had  been  taken  prisoner 
on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  why  should  Mark  men- 
tion it  at  all?  In  that  case,  he  would  surely 
either  have  passed  it  over  altogether,  or  have 
stated  that  it  was  not  fulfilled.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  it  were  fulfilled,  as  the  evangelist 
plainly  means  us  to  understand,  then  Jesus 
was    not   taken   prisoner,  and   therefore   not 


112     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

crucified  on  the  15th  of  Nisan;  for,  even 
according  to  Mark,  He  was  crucified  on  the 
same  day  on  which  He  was  taken  prisoner. 
This  passage  from  Mark,  therefore,  is  decid- 
edly in  the  way  of  our  regarding  the  15th  of 
Nisan  as  the  day  of  the  crucifixion." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  fact  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th  of  Nisan, 
not  on  the  15th,  is  established,  our  opponents 
being  witnesses  ;  for  the  foregoing,  and  several 
preceding  quotations,  are  taken  from  an  arti- 
cle written  in  the  endeavor  to  prove  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  Friday,  the  writer 
assuming  that  Friday  was  not  the  15th  but 
the  14th  day  of  the  month  Nisan,  a  position 
we  have  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter  to  be 
contrary  to  the  fact,  and  in  support  of  which 
(though  reasoning  so  acutely  on  other  points) 
he  has  given  us  no  evidence. 

We  have  now  shown  that  Friday,  in  the 
year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  was  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  Jewish  month  Nisan,  and 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that,  since  Friday  was 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     113 

the  15th,  and  He  was  crucified  on  the  14th, 
He  cannot  have  been  crucified  on  Friday,  but 
must  have  been  crucified  on  Thursday,  that 
being  the  14th. 


STATEMENT. 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 
He  could  have  lain  in  the  grave  only  on  Saturday 
and  but  two  nights,  —  Friday  night  and  Saturday 
night,  —  and  could  not  be  said  to  have  been  three 
nights  in  the  grave,  and  to  have  risen  on  the 
third  day.  He  could  have  been  in  the  grave  but 
two  nights  instead  of  three,  and  must  have  risen 
on  the  second,  and  not  on  the  third  day.  But, 
having  been  crucified  on  Thursday,  He  lay  in  the 
grave  three  nights,  —  Thursday  night,  Friday 
night,  and  Saturday  night,  —  and  all  day  Friday 
and  Saturday,  and  a  part  of  Sunday,  and  rose  on 
the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures. 


IV. 


OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION  ON  THURSDAY 
MAKES  HIM  TO  HAVE  LAIN  IN  THE  GRAVE 
THREE  NIGHTS,  AND  TO  HAVE  RISEN  ON 
THE  THIRD  DAY,  ACCORDING  TO  THE  SCRIP- 
TURES. 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 
He  could  have  lain  in  the  grave  only  two 
nights  and  one  day,1  whereas  it  is  said  that 
He  should  be  "  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  heart  of  the  earth  "  (Matt.  xiL  40). 

The  language  is  specific.  The  words,  more- 
over, were  uttered  by  the  Saviour,  who,  by 
reason  of  His  deity,  was  omniscient.    He  fore- 

1  When  it  is  said,  "  If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on 
Friday,  He  could  have  lain  in  the  grave  only  two  nights  and 
one  day,"  it  will  be  understood,  that,  by  the  expression  "one 
day"  the  daylight  of  Saturday  is  meant,  and  that  this  is  con- 
sistent with  the  statement  that  "  He  must  have  risen  on  the 
second  day,"  because,  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning,  from 
evening  to  evening,  Saturday  night  was  a  part  of  the  second 
day,  or  Sunday. 

117 


118     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

knew  the  controversy  that  wonld  arise  in 
regard  to  the  interval  between  His  death  and 
resurrection ;  that  the  term  "  three  days  and 
three  nights"  would  be  understood  literally; 
and  that,  if  the  period  between  His  death  and 
resurrection  did  not  correspond,  it  would 
produce  scepticism  and  cavilling  among  the 
enemies  of  the  truth.  He  was  "  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh,"  the  living  embodiment  of 
the  truth,  and  therefore  could  not  have  used 
language  (with  reference  to  any  event,  and 
especially  an  event  so  important)  which  was 
evidently  liable  to  mislead. 

When  He  said  "  three  days  and  three 
nights,"  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  must  have 
understood  Him  literally.  In  the  absence  of 
any  explanation  (and  no  explanation  is  given), 
they  must  have  understood  Him  to  mean  that 
precisely  which  the  language  was  naturally 
intended  to  convey.  The  efforts,  made  by 
commentators,  to  explain  it  differently,  have 
been  to  get  over  a  difficulty,  —  square  it  to  a 
particular  theory.  Their  explanations  are 
unnatural  and  forced. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     119 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Fri- 
day, He  could  have  lain  in  the  grave  but  two 
nights  —  Friday  night  and  Saturday  night  — 
and  but  one  day. 

In  no  sense  could  His  assertion  that  He 
should  be  "  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth  "  be  accounted  for.  This, 
on  the  false  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  Friday,  is  a  grave  difiiculty.  It 
puts  Him  in  the  false  position  of  uttering  that 
which  could  not  have  been  true  ;  of  making  a 
false  assertion,  and  of  making  it  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  fact,  —  a  thought  which  is 
not  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  Such  an 
assertion  would  be  impossible  from  the  lips  of 
Him  of  whom  only,  it  can  be  said  that  He  was 
sinless,  and  who  Himself  said,  "  I  am  the 
truth "  [John  xiv.  6),  and  again,  "  For  this 
cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should 
bear  witness  unto  the  truth  "  [John  xviii.  37). 
We  say,  therefore,  with  the  apostle,  "Let  God 
be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar  "  {Rom.  Hi.  4). 

The  advocates  of  the  false  theory  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  Friday,  involving,  as 


120     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

a  necessary  consequence,  the  fact  that  He 
could  have  been  in  the  grave  but  two  nights 
and  one  day,  say,  "  This  computation  is,  how- 
ever, strictly  in  accordance  with  the  Jewish 
mode  of  reckoning,"  and  give  as  a  reason, 
that,  "if  it  had  not  been,  the  Jews  would 
have  understood  it,  and  would  have  charged 
our  Saviour  with  being  a  false  prophet ;  for  it 
was  well  known  to  them  that  He  had  spoken 
this  prophecy,"  and  that,  as  "  such  a  charge 
was  never  made,  it  is  plain  that  what  was 
meant  by  the  prediction,  was  accomplished." 
They  make  no  attempt  to  prove  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  Friday.  That  which 
should  have  been  proved,  being  taken  for 
granted,  they  make  the  basis  of  the  argument. 
Their  inference  is,  that  there  must  be  some 
way  of  reconciling  the  assertion  with  the 
assumed  fact ;  that  it  must  have  been  under- 
stood, according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning,  to 
mean,  not,  as  it  says,  "  three  days  and  three 
nights,"  but  two  nights  and  a  part  of  two 
days,  or  else  "  the  Jews  would  have  charged 
our  Saviour  with  being  a  false  prophet."     A 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     121 

theory  is  set  up,  and  the  argument  founded 
upon  it.  But  the  premise  is  wrong,  and  it 
leads  to  a  false  conclusion. 

It  may  be  said  here,  by  way  of  explanation, 
that  our  Saviour  was  not  in  the  grave  three 
full  days.  The  assertion  that  "  He  should 
rise  again  on  the  third  day  "  [Matt.  xvi.  21 ; 
ami.  23  ;  xx.  19  ;  Mark  x.  34 ;  Luke  ix.  22 ; 
xviii.  33 ;  xxiv.  7)  determines  this.  The  two 
expressions,  that  He  should  be  "  three  days  in 
the  heart  of  the  earth,"  and  that  He  should 
"  rise  again  the  third  day,"  are  parallel.  The 
one  limits  or  explains  the  other.  If  He  rose 
on  "  the  third  day,"  He  must  have  risen 
before  the  third  day  was  completed.  There 
is  no  deception,  and  there  can  be  no  misun- 
derstanding here,  because  the  use  of  the 
expression  "the  third  day"  in  all  these  pas- 
sages explains  fully  what  our  Saviour  meant 
by  the  expression  "  three  days  ; "  but  by  no 
possibility  can  two  nights  and  a  part  of  two 
days  be  made  to  mean  three.  If  the  assump- 
tion that  Christ  was  crucified  on  Friday  had 
been  true,  "  the  Jews  would  have  known  it : " 


122     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

and  as  He  had  said  that  He  should  be  "  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the 
earth "  (which  in  that  case  could  not  have 
been  true),  they  would  have  "  charged  Him 
with  being  a  false  prophet ; "  and  the  fact  that 
they  made  no  such  charge,  on  account  of 
that  saying,  goes  most  emphatically  to  show 
that  His  assertion  was  literally  true,  and  that 
He  was  not  crucified  on  Friday. 

Or,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  we  have  shown 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th  of 
Nisan,  which,  in  that  year,  fell  on  Thursday ; 
and,  therefore,  His  assertion  that  He  should 
be  "  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart 
of  the  earth,"  and  "  rise  again  the  third  day," 
was  literally  true :  and  the  Jews  could  have 
had  no  reason  to  charge  Him  with  being  a 
false  prophet. 

It  is  said,  again,  that  "  it  was  a  maxim 
among  the  Jews,  in  computing  time,  that  a 
part  of  a  day  was  to  be  received  as  the 
whole  ;  "  and,  in  proof  of  this,  we  are  referred 
to  2  Chron.  x.  5,  12 ;  Gen.  xlii.  17,  18 ;  Esth. 
iv.  16,  compared  with  Esth.  v.  1.    In  2  Chron. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     123 

x.  5  Rehoboam  said  to  the  people  of  Israel, 
"  Come  again  to  nie  after  three  days  ;  "  and  in 
the  twelfth  verse  we  read,  that  "  Jeroboam 
and  all  the  people  came  to  Rehoboam  on  the 
third  day,  as  the  king  bade,  saying,  Come  to 
me  on  the  third  day."  In  Gen.  xlii.  17 
Joseph  is  represented  as  putting  his  brethren 
in  prison  when  they  had  come  down  to  Egypt 
to  buy  corn.  "  And  he  put  them  all  together 
into  ward  three  days : "  and  in  the  eighteenth 
verse,  "  Joseph  said  unto  them  the  third  day, 
This  do,  and  live ; "  and  this,  taken  with  the 
context,  is  proof  that  he  then  released  them. 

In  Esth.  iv.  16  Queen  Esther  desires  that 
the  Jews  in  Shushan  should  "  neither  eat  nor 
drink  three  days,  night  or  day,"  and  declares 
that  she  and  her  maidens  would  fast  likewise, 
and  so  would  she  go  in  unto  the  king.  And 
in  the  fifth  chapter  and  first  verse  we  learn 
that  she  did  this  on  the  third  day.  These  are 
all  the  passages ;  and  what  do  they  prove  ? 
Only  that  the  expressions  "  after  three  days  " 
and  "  on  the  third  day "  are  equivalent.  So 
that  when  our  Saviour  taught  His  disciples, 


124     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

that  "  after  three  days  He  should  rise  again" 
{Mark  viii.  31),  and  again,  that  "the  third 
day  He  should  rise  again"  {Mark  x.  34), 
the  passages  are  found  to  be  in  harmony  ;  and, 
by  His  resurrection  on  the  third  day,  His 
declaration  was  fulfilled.  But  it  by  no  means 
proves  that  the  expression  "  three  nights,"  as 
used  by  our  Saviour,  is  to  be  interpreted  to 
mean  but  two. 

It  is  said,  again,  that  "  the  term  '  three  days 
and  three  nights '  is  a  round  number,  accord- 
ing to  the  popular  mode  of  Hebrew  reckoning ; 
although  Christ  lay  only  one  day  and  two 
nights  in  the  grave."  It  is  claimed,  that,  if  it 
be  necessary  to  make  good  the  "  three  days 
and  three  nights,"  it  must  be  done  by  having 
recourse  to  the  Jewish  method  of  computing 
time;  and  that  in  the  Jerusalem  "Talmud" 
(cited  by  Lightfoot)  it  is  said  that  a  day  and 
night  together  make  a  n//0^epoy,  and  that  any 
part  of  such  period  is  counted  as  the  whole. 
But,  unfortunately  for  this  argument,  the  ex- 
pression is  not  wxdwepov,  as  in  2  Cor.  xi.  25, 
where  St.  Paul  says,  "  A  night  and  a  day  have 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     125 

I  been  in  the  deep,"  but  rpslg  r^ipag  and  TpeTg 
rvxrag,  three  days  and  three  nights.  Instead  of 
resorting  to  these  expedients,  how  much  better 
to  take  the  passage  literally  as  it  reads ;  and 
the  only  reason  for  not  doing  this,  is  the  vain 
endeavor  to  make  it  coincide  with  the  falsely 
assumed  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday. 

But  if  we  were  to  admit  all  that  is  claimed, 
that,  "  according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of 
reckoning,  a  day  and  night  together  make  a 
n>ydf-[iepov,  and  that  any  part  of  such  period  is 
counted  as  the  whole,"  and  that  the  rpsTg  r^pag 
and  Tpeig  vmaag  in  this  instance  were  to  be 
reckoned  as  though  they  were  widi^pa,  it 
would  not  relieve  us  of  the  difficulty ;  for  even 
then  our  Saviour  must  have  lain  in  the  grave 
some  part  of  each  one  of  the  three  days  to 
have  it  counted  as  the  whole :  whereas,  if  he 
had  been  crucified  on  Friday,  we  should  have 
no  evidence  that  He  lay  in  the  grave  more 
than  parts  of  two;  and,  therefore,  on  the 
above  assumption,  it  must  be  reckoned  as  two 
days,  and  not  as  three. 


126     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

His  death  did  not  take  place  until  after  the 
ninth  hour,  or  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon 
[Matt,  xxvii.  46-50).  This  will  be  seen  also 
from  Mark,  who  says  {Mark  xv.  34),  "  At  the 
ninth  hour  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  say- 
ing, Eloi,  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani?  which  is, 
being  interpreted,  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  and,  after  that,  he  says,  in 
the  thirty-seventh  verse,  "  And  Jesus  cried  with 
a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up  the  ghost."  Here 
it  will  be  seen,  that,  according  to  Mark,  it  was 
the  ninth  hour,  or  three  o'clock,  when  our 
Saviour  uttered  the  first  cry.  After  that,  as 
we  learn  from  the  thirty-sixth  verse,  "  One 
ran  and  filled  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar,  and 
put  it  on  a  reed,  and  gave  Him  to  drink,"  and 
after  that  "  He  cried,  and  gave  up  the  ghost." 
He  must,  therefore,  have  died  after  the  "  ninth 
hour,"  or  three  o'clock.  Probably  not  long 
after,  but  how  long  we  have  no  means  of 
determining.  After  that,  the  Jews  besought 
Pilate  that  the  legs  of  those  who  had  been 
crucified,  might  be  broken,  and  that  they 
might  be  taken  away  [John  xix.  31).     Pilate's 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     127 

permission  was  obtained,  and  word  was 
brought  to  the  soldiers.  And,  accordingly, 
we  read,  "  Then  came  the  soldiers,  and  brake 
the  legs  of  the  first,  and  of  the  other  which 
was  crucified  with  Him.  But  when  they  came 
to  Jesus,  and  saw  that  He  was  dead  already, 
they  brake  not  His  legs :  but  one  of  the 
soldiers  with  a  spear  pierced  His  side,  and 
forthwith  came  there  out  blood  and  water" 
{John  ocix.  33-35).  All  this,  which  occurred 
subsequently  to  our  Saviour's  death  (the  going 
of  the  Jews  to  Pilate,  obtaining  his  permission, 
and  carrying  the  information  to  the  soldiers), 
must  have  occupied  a  considerable  time. 
From  which,  we  perceive,  that  our  Saviour 
could  not  have  been  taken  down  from  the 
cross,  until  very  nearly  the  close  of  the  day. 

But,  before  He  was  taken  down,  Joseph 
went  to  Pilate,  and  begged  the  body  of  Jesus 
{Matt,  xxvii.  57,  58 ;  Mark  xv.  42,  43  ;  Luke 
xxiii.  50-52).  In  going  to  Pilate,  he  went 
probably  to  the  prsetorium,  or  governor's 
house ;  and  (whether  this  was  the  palace  of 
Herod,  or,  more  probably,  the  fortress  Antonia, 


128     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

and  whether  the  place  of  Christ's  crucifixion 
was  that  assigned  by  Christian  tradition,  or 
not),  since  it  was  without  the  walls  of  the  city, 
it  must  have  been  some  distance  between  the 
two  places.  And  as  Pilate,  before  giving  per- 
mission, "  called  to  him,"  that  is,  sent  for,  the 
centurion,  to  ascertain  if  Christ  was  already 
dead,  this  distance  must  have  been  travelled 
over  four  times,  —  twice  by  Joseph  in  going 
and  returning,  once  by  the  messenger  sent  by 
Pilate,  and  once  by  the  centurion.  The  time 
thus  occupied,  and  the  time  previously  occu- 
pied by  the  Jews  in  obtaining  Pilate's  permis- 
sion that  their  legs  might  be  broken,  and  that 
they  might  be  taken  away,  and  in  carrying  the 
information  to  the  soldiers,  together  with  the 
time  occupied  in  taking  down  the  body  of 
Jesus,  wrapping  it  in  linen  with  the  spices, 
and  laying  it  in  the  sepulchre,  must  have 
brought  it  (even  if  we  had  no  other  evidence) 
to  six  o'clock,  or  near  it,  which  would  have 
been  the  beginning  of  Saturday ;  for  the 
Jews  reckoned  then*  day  from  evening  to 
evening :    and  the  legal  day,  in  the  time  of 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     129 

our  Saviour,  commenced  at  six  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon. 

The  night,  at  that  time,  among  the  Jews, 
was  divided  into  four  watches,  a  fourth  watch 
having  been  introduced  by  the  Romans.  All 
these  watches  are  distinctly  mentioned  in 
Mark  xiii.  35 :  "  At  even,  or  at  midnight,  or 
at  the  cock-crowing,  or  in  the  morning." 
Home  says,  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  Criti- 
cal Study  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures "  (vol  ii.  chap.  iv.  p.  73),  "  The  first 
watch  was  at  even,  and  continued  from  six  till 
nine;  the  second  commenced  at  nine,  and 
ended  at  twelve,  or  midnight;  the  third  watch 
lasted  from  twelve  to  three  ;  and  the  morning 
watch  closed  at  six."  Now,  as  the  first  watch 
began  at  six,  that  was  the  beginning  of  their 
night;  and,  as  the  Jews  reckoned  their  day 
from  evening  to  evening,  it  was  the  beginning 
of  then-  legal  day.  The  same  is  manifest  also 
from  the  Jews  dividing  their  day  into  hours. 
Thus,  seven  o'clock  was  the  first  hour,  eight 
the  second,  nine  the  third,  and  so  on ;  and  six 
was  always  the  twelfth  hour,  showing  that  six 


130     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

o'clock  ended  the  legal  day,  and  of  course 
began  the  next  (see  Home's  "  Introduction" 
vol.  it.  p.  72). 

The  natural  day  of  the  Jews  varied  in  length 
according  to  the  season,  but  not  the  civil. 

The  earliest  mention  of  hours  in  the  sacred 
writings  is  in  Daniel ;  hence  it  is  believed  that 
the  Jews  derived  their  method  of  dividing  the 
time  from  the  Babylonians  during  the  cap- 
tivity: and,  as  the  Babylonians  reckoned  the 
natural  day  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  so  probably 
did  the  Jews.  But  while  the  Jews,  like  the 
Babylonians,  reckoned  their  natural  day  from 
sunrise  to  sunset,  their  civil  or  legal  day,  as 
we  have  seen,  which  we  must  follow  in  our 
reckoning,  was  from  six  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon of  one  day  to  six  o'clock  in  the  afternoon 
of  the  next,  and  ended  sometimes  before  and 
sometimes  after  the  natural  day,  according  to 
the  season. 

We  have  now  shown  the  probability  that 
the  body  of  our  Saviour  was  not  laid  in  the 
grave  until  after  six  o'clock,  and  that,  conse- 
quently, if  He  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     131 

it  could  not  have  been  laid  in  the  grave  until 
after  the  Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  had  com- 
menced. 

We  now  proceed  to  show  that  this  was  not 
only  a  probability,  but  a  certainty;  that  the 
body  of  Jesus  was  not  laid  in  the  grave  until 
after  six  o'clock;  and  we  have  the  clearest 
evidence  on  this  point.  "  When  the  even  was 
come,  there  came  a  rich  man  of  Arimathea, 
named  Joseph,  who  also  himself  was  Jesus' 
disciple.  He  went  to  Pilate,  and  begged  the 
body  of  Jesus"  (Matt,  xxvii.  57,  58).  "And 
now  when  the  even  was  come,"  etc.  (Mark  xv. 
42).  In  both  instances,  the  original  word 
translated  "  even  "  is  mptag.  This,  in  its  proper 
or  literal  sense,  Robinson  says  ("  New  Testa- 
ment Greek  Lexicon  "),  signifies  "  late  evening." 
The  Jews  reckoned  two  evenings,  —  the  first 
when  the  sun  began  to  go  down,  or  twelve 
o'clock  m.,  and  the  second  at  six  o'clock,  or 
sunset.  The  second,  therefore,  was  the  "  late 
evening : "  and  even  if  it  were  to  be  claimed 
that  oipt'ag,  "  late  evening,"  may  have  been  used 
to  denote  the  former  evening,  it  is  certain,  that 


132     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 


cannot  have  been  its  meaning  here ;  for  Christ 
did  not  die  until  three  hours  or  more  after 
the  first  evening  had  commenced.  It  must, 
then,  be  taken  in  its  customary  sense  of  "  late 
evening,"  or  second  evening,  which  began  at 
six  o'clock. 

That  the  "  late  "  or  second  evening  began 
at  six  o'clock  is  beyond  question.  The  only 
different  opinion  from  this  is  that  held  by  the 
Karaites  and  the  Samaritans,  that  it  began  at 
sunset,  and  was  the  interval  between  sunset 
and  dark ;  and  this  weighs  nothing  against  the 
authority  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  Rabbinists, 
that  it  began  at  six  o'clock.  But  to  adopt  the 
opinion  of  the  Karaites  and  the  Samaritans 
would  bring  it  still  later,  and  show  that  Joseph 
did  not  go  to  Pilate  to  beg  the  body  of  Jesus 
until  after  sunset,  which  is  manifestly  incorrect ; 
as  in  that  case  they  could  not  have  complied 
with  the  requirement  of  the  Jewish  law,  that 
the  bodies  should  be  taken  down  the  same 
day  (Deut.  xxi.  23). 

That  the  body  of  Jesus  was  laid  in  the 
grave  after  six  o'clock  is  seen,  if  possible,  yet 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     133 

more  clearly  from  the  account  as  given  by 
Luke  :  "  This  man  went  unto  Pilate,  and 
begged  the  body  of  Jesus.  And  he  took  it 
down,  and  wrapped  it  in  linen,  and  laid  it  in 
a  sepulchre  that  was  hewn  in  stone,  wherein 
never  man  before  was  laid.  And  that  day 
was  the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew 
on"  (Luke  xxiii.  52-54).  The  word  here 
translated  "  drew  on"  is  Ineqxooxe,  "  was  begin- 
ning." The  last  sentence,  therefore,  in  the 
original,  reads,  "  And  that  day  was  the  prepa- 
ration, and  the  Sabbath  was  beginning."  That 
this  is  the  correct  rendering  will  be  seen 
by  referring  to  Robinsons  "New  Testament 
Greek  Lexicon,"  where  he  refers  directly  to 
this  passage,  and  says,  "  beginning  at  sunset," 
"to  begin."  The  Revised  New  Testament 
also  confirms  this  in  its  translation  of  this 
passage.  After  giving  the  translation  accord- 
ing to  the  King  James  version,  "  and  the 
Sabbath  drew  on,"  the  marginal  reading  is 
"  Gr.  began  to  dawn."  Now,  the  verb 
"  dawn,"  according  to  Webster,  has  two  mean- 
ings,—  "to  begin    to   grow  light,"  and   "to 


134     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

begin  to  appear."  That  the  Sabbath  did  not 
"  begin  to  dawn,"  in  the  first  sense  of  begin- 
ning to  grow  light,  is  apparent ;  for  it  does  not 
begin  to  grow  light  at  six  o'clock  in  the 
evening.  The  only  sense  in  which  the  Sab- 
bath could  "  begin  to  dawn  "  at  that  time  was 
in  the  sense  of  "  began  to  appear,"  of  Web- 
ster's second  definition,  which,  as  the  Sabbath 
began  at  six  o'clock,  was  its  true  meaning. 
The  same  distinctions  appear  also  in  the  noun 
" '  dawn,'  n.  1.  The  break  of  day;  the  first 
appearance  of  light  in  the  morning. 

"  2.  First  opening  or  expansion ;  first  ap- 
pearance ;  beginning ;  rise.  '  The  dawn  of 
time.'  —  Thomson "  (Webster).  The  same 
verb  is  used  also  in  Matt,  xxviii.  1,  and  is  thus 
translated :  "  As  it  began  to  dawn  towards  the 
first  day  of  the  week,"  from  which  we  under- 
stand that  the  dawn  of  day,  or  the  beginning  of 
daylight,  was  apparent.  This  passage  in  Luke, 
therefore,  shows  that  the  time  when  the  body 
of  Jesus  was  laid  in  the  sepulchre  was  when 
the  Sabbath  was  beginning,  which  must  have 
been  after  six  o'clock,  and  confirms  the  pas- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     135 

sages  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  that  it  was  in  the 
"  late  "  or  second  evening,  that  is,  after  six 
o'clock,  and  consequently  after  the  Sabbath  had 
commenced.  And  kmcpcoaxs  (the  word  translated 
"drew  on")  signifies  here  the  beginning,  not 
of  the  natural,  but  of  the  legal  Sabbath.  It 
is  clear,  then,  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  not 
laid  in  the  grave  until  after  six  o'clock,  or  the 
beginning  of  the  day  after  that  on  which  He 
was  crucified,  and  hence,  that,  if  He  had  been 
crucified  on  Friday,  He  could  have  lain  in  the 
grave  only  on  Saturday  and  a  part  of  Sunday, 
and  must  have  risen  on  the  second  day,  since 
He  rose  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  We  do 
not  get  even  the  parts  of  three  days,  which 
have  been  claimed. 

But  it  may  be  objected,  that,  according  to 
the  Jewish  law,  the  person  hanged  was  to  be 
taken  down  the  same  day :  "  His  body  shall 
not  remain  all  night  upon  the  tree,  but  thou 
shalt  in  any  wise  bury  him  that  day "  (Deut. 
xoci,  23).  Again,  it  is  said,  "  The  Jews,  there- 
fore, because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  the 
bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on 


136     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

the  Sabbath  day  (for  that  Sabbath  day  was  a 
high  day),  besought  Pilate  that  their  legs 
might  be  broken,  and  that  they  might  be  taken 
away"  [John  xix.  31). 

We  answer  that  Josephus,  who  is  good 
authority  for  the  customs  of  the  Jews  in  his 
day,  and  who  lived  but  a  few  years  after 
Christ,  has  taught  us,  by  inference  from  the 
Jewish  practice,  that  this  had  reference,  not 
to  the  civil,  but  to  the  natural,  day ;  that  the 
bodies  of  those  who  were  hanged  were  to  be 
buried  before  sunset.  For  he  says,  "  The 
Jews  used  to  take  so  much  care  of  the  burial 
of  men,  that  they  took  down  the  bodies  of 
those  that  were  condemned  and  crucified,  and 
buried  them  before  the  going  down  of  the 
sun  ("  Wars  of  the  Jews"  book  iv.  chap.  v. 
sect.  2).  Now,  as  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
the  14th  of  the  month  Nisan,  answering  to 
about  the  1st  of  our  April,  the  sun  did  not 
set  in  Palestine  until  a  quarter-past  six ;  hence, 
though  not  buried  until  after  six  o'clock,  He 
may  still  have  been  buried  before  sunset, 
after  the  beginning  of  the  legal  day,  and  yet 
before  the  close  of  the  natural. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     137 

We  have  now  shown  that*  our  Saviour  was 
not  buried  until  after  six  o'clock  on  the  day 
on  which  He  was  crucified,  which  was  the 
beginning  of  the  day  after;  and  that,  if  He 
had  been  crucified  on  Friday,  He  could  not 
have  been  laid  in  the  grave  until  after  the 
commencement  of  the  legal  Saturday;  and, 
therefore,  as  He  rose  on  the  morning  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  He  could  have  been 
in  the  grave  but  two  nights  —  Friday  night 
and  Saturday  night  —  and  one  day,  Saturday, 
and  must  have  risen  on  the  second,  and  not  on 
the  third,  day. 

We  thus  perceive  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  explaining  the  assertion  of  our  Saviour  in 
regard  to  the  "  three  nights  and  three  days  " 
consistently  with  the  falsely  assumed  theory, 
that  He  was  crucified  on  Friday. 

Whereas,  on  the  theory  that  He  was  cruci- 
fied on  Thursday  (which  we  have  shown  to  be 
correct),  He  lay  in  the  grave  Thursday  night, 
Friday  night,  and  Saturday  night,  "  three 
nights,"  and  (as  He  was  buried  soon  after  six 
o'clock  on  the  beginning   of  Friday)  all  day 


138     THE   DAY   OF  OUR   SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

Friday  and  Saturday  and  a  part  of  Sunday 
(Saturday  night  being  a  part  of  Sunday  ac- 
cording to  the  Jews'  mode  of  reckoning),  and 
rose  literally  on  the  third  day,  according  to  the 
Scriptures.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that 
the  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday  fulfils 
every  condition. 


STATEMENT. 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 
He  could  have  lain  in  the  grave  only  one  Sabbath  ; 
and  we  have  no  satisfactory  explanation  of  Mat- 
thew's use  of  the  plural  Zaffiunov,  Vxps  de  Zaffidrmv, 
"the  end  of  the  Sabbaths  "  {Matt,  xxviii,  1). 


OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION  ON  THURSDAY 
ACCOUNTS  FOR  MATTHEW'S  USE  OF  THE 
PLURAL  ZABBATGN. 

We  have  shown  in  chap.  ii.  that  Friday 
was  the  15th  of  Nisan,  and  that,  heing  the 
15th,  it  was  the  "  great"  or  "high"  Sabbath 
of  the  festival.  Now,  as  onr  Saviour  was 
crucified,  as  we  have  shown  in  chap,  iii.,  on 
the  14th  of  Nisan,  which  was  Thursday,  He 
lay  in  the  grave  on  Friday,  the  15th  of  Nisan, 
the  "high"  Sabbath  of  the  festival,  and  on 
Saturday,  the  ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath,  —  two 
Sabbaths;  and  Matthew  might  appropriately 
say,  Vxps  ds  Zappdrow, "  at  the  end  of  the  Sab- 
baths," or,  more  correctly,  "  after  the  Sab- 
baths." 

Whereas,  if  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified 
on  Friday,  only  one  Sabbath  would  have 
intervened  (see  chap.  ii.  ^.38-45.  Also  chap, 
ix.  pp.228  -232).  hi 


STATEMENT. 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 
the  "six  days"  and  the  "two  days  before  the 
Passover  "  could  not  have  been  explained  consist- 
ently with  the  general  belief  of  the  church,  and 
the  generally  expressed  opinion  of  commentators 
in  regard  to  them. 


VI. 


OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION  ON  THURSDAY 
EXPLAINS  THE  "SIX  DAYS"  AND  THE  "TWO 
DAYS  BEFORE  THE  PASSOVER  "  CONSIST- 
ENTLY WITH  THE  GENERALLY  EXPRESSED 
OPINION  OF  COMMENTATORS  IN  REGARD  TO 
THEM. 

We  have  shown  in  chap.  ii.  that  the  "  six 
days  before  the  Passover"  [John  xii.  1)  and 
the  "two  days  before  the  Passover"  {Matt, 
xxvi.  2;  Mark  xiv.  1)  were  "six  days  "and 
"  two  days "  before  the  feast-day,  or  day  on 
which  the  paschal  lamb  was  eaten,  which  was 
the  loth  of  Nisan;  and  that,  according  to  the 
general  belief  of  the  church,  and  the  gener- 
ally expressed  opinion  of  commentators,  the 
"six  days  before  the  Passover,"  when  Jesus 
arrived  at  Bethany,  fell  on  Saturday,  and  the 
;;  two  days  before  the  Passover  "  fell  on 
Wednesday :  the  only  difference  being,  that, 
in  regard  to  the  first,  some  have  claimed  that 

145 


146     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

He  arrived  at  Bethany  late  on  Friday  evening, 
and  others,  that  He  arrived  in  the  daylight  of 
Saturday ;  and  that,  in  regard  to  the  second, 
some  have  asserted  that  Jesus  uttered  the 
saying,  "  two  days  before  the  Passover,"  late 
on  Tuesday  evening,  and  others,  that  He  said 
it  in  the  daylight  of  Wednesday,  which,  so 
far  as  the  reckoning  is  concerned,  makes  no 
difference;  for,  as  the  Jews  reckoned  their 
days  from  evening  to  evening,  it  would  have 
been  Saturday  and  Wednesday  in  either  case. 

We  showed  also  that  Saturday  was  the 
ninth,  Wednesday  the  thirteenth,  and  Friday 
the  fifteenth,  day  of  the  month  Nisan. 

We  have  shown  also,  in  chap,  iii.,  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th  of  the  month 
Nisan,  not  on  the  feast-day,  but  on  the  day  of 
preparation  for  it. 

Now,  if  He  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 
Friday  must  have  been  the  14th  of  Nisan 
(which  we  have  shown  in  chap.  ii.  to  be  con- 
trary to  the  fact)  ;  and  the  next  day,  Saturday, 
must  have  been  the  "  Passover,"  the  feast-day, 
the  15th  ;  and  hence  the  "  two  days  before  the 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION.     147 


Passover  "  must  have  been  Thursday,  and  not 
Wednesday ;  and  the  "  six  days  before  the 
Passover,"  when  Jesus  arrived  at  Bethany, 
must  have  been  Sunday,  and  not  Saturday, 
according  to  the  general  belief  of  the  church, 
and  the  generally  expressed  opinion  of  com- 
mentators in  regard  to  them.  Whereas,  His 
being  crucified  on  Thursday,  the  14th  of  Nisan 
(Friday  being  the  "  feast  day,"  the  15th),  makes 
the  "  two  days  before  the  Passover"  to  have 
been  Wednesday,  and  Wednesday  to  have 
been  the  13th,  and  the  "  six  days  before  the 
Passover "  to  have  been  Saturday,  and  Satur- 
day to  have  been  the  ninth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan,  which  is  according  to  the  general  be- 
lief. 


STATEMENT. 

If  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Friday, 
His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  could  not 
have  been  on  Sunday,  called  "  Palm  Sunday,"  as 
has  been  the  general  belief  of  the  church,  but 
must  have  been  on  Monday. 


vn. 

OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION  ON  THURSDAY 
MAKES  HIS  TRIUMPHAL  ENTRY  INTO  JERU- 
SALEM TO  HAVE  BEEN  ON  SUNDAY,  CALLED 
"PALM  SUNDAY,"  ACCORDING  TO  THE  GEN- 
ERAL BELIEF  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

We  have  shown  in  chap,  ii.,  that  "  six 
days  before  the  Passover,"  which  marks  the 
arrival  of  our  Saviour  at  Bethany  [John  xii. 
1),  was  six  days  before  the  "  feast  day ; "  that 
is,  six  days  before  the  day  on  which  the 
paschal  lamb  was  eaten  :  and  we  have  also 
shown  that  the  paschal  lamb  was  eaten  on  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan.  A  little 
repetition  here,  however,  would  seem  to  be 
necessary.  In  Exod.  xii.  6  the  Jews  were 
commanded  to  kill  the  lamb  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan,  and  in  Exod.  xii.  8 
to  eat  it  that  night,  which  would  be  after  the 
beginning  of  the  15th.  We  have  shown  also, 
in  chap.  ii.    (in   an    argument  to  prove  that 

151 


152     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Friday  was  the  15th),  that  the  arrival  at 
Bethany  was  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Sat- 
urday, probably  late  on  Friday  evening,  after 
the  Sabbath  had  commenced.  And  it  is  plain 
[John  ooii.  12),  that,  on  the  next  day,  that  is, 
the  day  after  His  arrival  at  Bethany  (compare 
with  John  xii.  1),  Jesus  made  His  triumphal 
entry  into  Jerusalem;  and,  as  He  arrived  at 
Bethany  on  Saturday,  He  must  have  made  His 
triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  on  Sunday. 
It  is  well  known  that  this  has  been  the  general 
belief  of  the  church ;  and,  in  confirmation  of 
it,  it  may  be  well  to  repeat  here  the  remark  of 
Dr.  Whedon  ("  Commentary  on  Matthew" pp. 
238,  239),  "  I  see  no  good  ground  for  adopt- 
ing any  other  than  the  scheme  of  the  ancient 
church,  sanctioned  by  Olshausen,  Tholuck, 
and  others.  It  supposes  the  triumphal  entry 
to  have  been  on  Sunday,  hence,  called  '  Palm 
Sunday.' " 

Now,  the  false  theory  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  Friday  (since  He  was  crucified,  as 
we  have  shown  in  chap,  iii.,  not  on  the  day  of 
the  Passover,  or  "  feast  day,"  but  on  the  "  day 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     153 

of  preparation  of  the  Passover"  [John  xix. 
14),  the  day  on  which  the  paschal  lamb  was 
killed,  which  was  the  14th  of  Nisan)  would 
make  Friday  to  have  been  the  14th,  and  the 
following  day,  Saturday,  to  have  been  the  day 
of  the  Passover,  the  15th.  Reckoning  back, 
therefore,  six  days  from  Saturday  would  bring 
our  Saviour's  arrival  at  Bethany  on  Sunday 
instead  of  the  previous  Saturday ;  and  conse- 
quently, as  Jesus  made  His  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem  the  day  after  His  arrival  in 
Bethany,  it  would  make  that  entry  to  have 
occurred  on  Monday,  and  not  on  "  Palm 
Sunday,"  as  has  been  generally  believed. 
While  His  being  crucified  on  Thursday,  the 
14th  of  the  month  Nisan  (Friday  being  the 
day  of  the  Passover,  the  15th),  makes  His  arri- 
val at  Bethany  to  have  been  six  days  before 
Friday,  or  on  Saturday,  and  the  triumphal 
entry  into  Jerusalem  on  Sunday,  "the  next 
day;"  and  "Palm  Sunday"  is  still  Sunday, 
according  to  the  general  belief. 


STATEMENT. 

On  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday,  we  are  unable  to  account  for  the  occu- 
pation of  the  several  days  of  Passion  Week,  and 
the  concealment  that  hangs  over  Wednesday. 


vm. 

THE  CRUCIFIXION  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR  ON  THURS- 
DAY ACCOUNTS  FOR  THE  OCCUPATION  OF 
THE  SEVERAL  DAYS  OF  PASSION  WEEK, 
AND  REMOVES  THE  CONCEALMENT  WHICH 
HANGS  OVER  WEDNESDAY. 

The  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified 
on  Friday  fails  to  account  for  the  occupation 
of  the  several  days  of  Passion  Week. 

The  failure  is  so  evident  that  Keble  speaks 
distinctly  of  the  sacred  concealment  which 
hangs  over  Wednesday.  Dr.  Smith,  recog- 
nizing this  difficulty,  and  unable  to  account  for 
it  in  any  other  way,  in  speaking  of  Wednes- 
day, says  ("  New  Testament  History"  Students' 
Series,  book  ii.  chap.  cci. p.  313),  "Having,  on 
the  previous  evening,  told  His  disciples  the 
time  of  His  betrayal,  our  Lord  remained  at 
Bethany  till  the  afternoon  of  Thursday  ;  and 
a  solemn  silence  rests  on  this  period  of  His 
life."     Dr.  Maclear,  also  in  his  "  Class-Book 

157 


158     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

of  New  Testament  History,"  part  vii.  chap.  iv. 
p.  277,  says,  in  speaking  of  Wednesday, 
"  He  "  (Jesns)  "  retired  in  all  probability  to 
Bethany,  and  there,  hidden  in  holy  seclusion, 
spent  the  last  day  preceding  His  sufferings." 
And  again,  p.  279,  "  Thus,  then,  the  day  of 
seclusion  at  Bethany,  the  Wednesday  of  the 
Holy  Week,  passed  away."  Canon  Farrar,  in 
his  "  Life  of  Christ,"  says  of  Wednesday, 
"  The  day  was  spent  by  Him  in  deep  seclu- 
sion, so  far  as  we  know,  in  perfect  rest  and 
silence."  Similar  quotations  might  be  made 
from  other  authors,  but  it  is  unnecessary. 
This  has  been  regarded  as  so  great  a  difficulty, 
that  Mr.  Carpenter,  to  shorten  the  week, 
boldly  transfers  "  Palm  Sunday  "  to  Monday. 
Dr.  Robinson  also  asserts  that  our  Saviour's 
triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  was  on  Mon- 
day (see  schedule  of  days,  Robinson's  "  Eng- 
lish Harmony  of  the  Gospels" p.  192). 

On  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday,  none  of  the  evangelists  have 
accounted  for  the  occupation  of  Wednesday. 
Where  Christ  was,  and  what  He  was  doing, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     159 

is  left  in  obscurity.  But  having  been  cruci- 
fied, as  we  have  shown,  on  Thursday,  the 
difficulty  disappears.  He  was  in  Jerusalem 
on  Wednesday,  and  ate  the  supper  with  His 
disciples  on  Wednesday  evening.  The  ne- 
cessity for  shortening  the  week  is  removed, 
and,  consequently,  of  transferring  Palm  Sun- 
day to  Monday. 


STATEMENT. 

Oy  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
Friday,  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  John  and 
the  other  evangelists ;  and  John  is  made  to  con- 
tradict himself. 


IX. 


THE  CRUCIFIXION  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR  ON  THURS- 
DAY RECONCILES  THE  APPARENT  DISCREP- 
ANCY BETWEEN  JOHN  AND  THE  OTHER 
EVANGELISTS,  AND  REMOVES  THE  APPAR- 
ENT CONTRADICTION  IN  HIS  OWN  STATE- 
MENTS; IN  SHORT,  REMOVES  EVERY  DIFFI- 
CULTY. 

On  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday,  there  is  a  discrepancy  between 
John  and  the  other  evangelists,  which  cannot 
be  explained  away. 

The  Synoptists  say,  "  Now  the  first  day  of 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  the  disciples 
came  to  Jesus,  saying,  where  wilt  Thou  that 
we  prepare  for  Thee  to  eat  the  Passover?" 
[Matt.  xxvi.  17.)  "And  the  first  day  of  un- 
leavened bread,  when  they  killed  the  Pass- 
over, His  disciples  said  unto  Him,  Where 
wilt  Thou  that  we  go  and  prepare  that  Thou 
mayest  eat   the   Passover  V'  [Mark  ociv.  12.) 

163 


164     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

"  Then  came  the  day  of  unleavened  bread, 
when  the  Passover  must  be  killed.  And  He 
sent  Peter  and  John,  saying,  Go  and  prepare 
us  the  Passover,  that  we  may  eat.  And  they 
said  unto  Him,  Where  wilt  Thou  that  we 
prepare  ] "  [Luke  xxii.  7-9.) 

It  will  be  noticed  here,  that  the  day  on 
which  our  Saviour  sent  His  disciples  to  pre- 
pare for  Him  the  Passover  was  "  the  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread,"  and  the  day  on  which  the 
"  Passover,"  or  paschal  lamb,  "  was  killed :  " 
as  Luke  expresses  it,  "  when  the  Passover 
must  be  killed ; "  that  is,  the  first  day  of  the 
Passover  (which  was  called  also  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread),  and  the  14th  of  the  month 
Nisan;  for  that  was  the  day  on  which  the 
Passover  was  killed  (Exod.  xii.  6)  :  "  And  ye 
shall  keep  it  up  "  (the  lamb)  "  until  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  same  month,  and  the  whole 
assembly  of  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall 
kill  it  in  the  evening"  (between  the  evenings, 
as  is  the  marginal  reading  from  the  Hebrew) ; 
that  is,  at  three  o'clock :  and  the  Jews'  prac- 
tice, as  we  have  shown,  was  to  kill  it  between 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     165 

three  and  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  or  near 
the  close  of  the  14th.  There  is  no  question  in 
regard  to  this.  "  In  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
first  month,  at  even,  is  the  Lord's  Passover" 
[Lev.  xxiiL  5).  "  In  the  fourteenth  day  of  this 
month,  at  even,  ye  shall  keep  it  in  his  ap- 
pointed season."  "  And  they  kept  the  Pass- 
over on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month, 
at  even,  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai "  {Num.  ix. 
3,  5).  And  we  read  in  Deut.  xvi.  6,  "  Thou 
shalt  sacrifice  the  Passover  at  even,  at  the 
going  down  of  the  sun." 

It  must,  therefore,  have  been  killed  near 
the  close  of  the  fourteenth  day  (as  we  have 
previously  shown),  between  three  and  five 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  With  this,  commen- 
tators agree.  Dr.  Robinson  says,  "  The  true 
time  of  killing  the  Passover,  in  our  Lord's 
day,  was  between  the  ninth  and  eleventh 
hour;"  i.e.,  between  three  and  Hve  o'clock,  or 
"  towards  sunset  "  ("  English  Harmony"  p. 
196).  Home  says,  "  The  paschal  lamb  was 
required  to  be  sacrificed '  between  the  evenings,' 
which,  Josephus  tells  us,  'The  Jews,  in  his 


166     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

time,  did  from  the  ninth  hour  until  the 
eleventh' "  {Homes  "  Introduction"  vol.  ii. part 
ii.  chap.  iv. p.  73.  See  "  Wars  of  Jews"  book 
vi.  chap.  ix.  sect  3). 

But  while  the  Passover  was  to  be  killed 
"  between  the  two  evenings,"  on  the  fourteenth 
day,  it  was  to  be  eaten  on  the  night  of  the 
15th.  Thus  Exod.  xii.  8,  "  And  they  shall  eat 
the  flesh  in  that  night "  (that  is,  the  night  after 
it  had  been  killed),  "  roast  with  fire,  and  un- 
leavened bread."  As  they  killed  it  "  between 
the  evenings  "on  the  14th,  it  could  not  have 
been  prepared  and  roasted  before  six  o'clock, 
which,  as  we  have  shown,  was  the  commence- 
ment of  their  legal  day ;  and  hence  it  could 
not  have  been  eaten  until  the  15th. 

The  Jews  reckoned  their  day  from  evening 
to  evening  [Lev.  xxiii.  32).  But  the  proof  is 
positive.  The  Jews  left  Egypt  the  same 
night  [Exod.  xii.  29-37),  after  midnight,  evi- 
dently towards  morning.  But  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
3  it  is  said,  that  "  they  departed  from  Ba- 
rneses on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  first 
month  ;  "  and,  as  they  ate  the  Passover  on  the 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S    CRUCIFIXION.     167 

day  that  they  departed,  they  must  have  eaten 
it  on  the  15th.  Accordingly  we  read,  "  In 
the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  at  even, 
is  the  Lord's  Passover.  And  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  same  month  is  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread"  [Lev.  xxiii.  5,  6).  Also, 
"  And  in  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month 
is  the  Passover  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  this  month  is  the  feast "  [Num. 
xxviii.  16,  17).  Dr.  Robinson  says,  "The 
paschal  lamb  was  killed  on  the  14th  of  Nisan 
towards  sunset,  and  was  eaten  the  same  even- 
ing, after  the  fifteenth  day  of  Nisan  had 
begun"  [Robinson's  "  Greek  Harmony"  p.  207). 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  accords  with  the  Scrip- 
ture narrative;  and  on  this  point  also  com- 
mentators are  agreed. 

Our  Saviour,  then,  according  to  the  Synop- 
tists,  must  have  sent  His  disciples  to  prepare 
for  Him  the  Passover  on  the  fourteenth  day 
of  the  month  Nisan;  for  that  was  the  day 
"  in  which  the  Passover  must  be  killed : "  and 
this  (if  He  had  been  crucified  on  Friday) 
would  have  been  Thursday,  for  He  sent  His 


168     THE  DAY  OF   OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

disciples  to  prepare  for  Him  the  Passover  the 
day  before  He  was  crucified.  He  ate  the 
Passover  with  them  the  evening  after,  which, 
according  to  the  Jewish  law,  as  we  have 
shown,  must  have  been  the  beginning  of  the 
15th,  and  would  have  been  Thursday  evening, 
as  we  reckon  it,  but  with  the  Jews  the  begin- 
ning of  Friday. 

According  to  the  Synoptists,  our  Saviour  ate 
the  Passover  with  His  disciples  at  the  proper 
time,  on  the  day  of  the  Passover,  the  night 
after  the  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  killed,  the 
beginning  of  the  15th  of  Nisan.  But  John 
(xiii.  1,  2,  4)  speaks  of  our  Saviour's  supper 
with  His  disciples  as  being  before  the  Pass- 
over :  "  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover, 
when  Jesus  knew  that  His  hour  was  come 
that  He  should  depart  out  of  this  world  unto 
the  Father,  having  loved  His  own,  .  .  .  He 
loved  them  unto  the  end.  And  supper  being 
ended,  .  .  .  He  riseth  from  supper,"  etc. 

That  it  was  before  the  Passover,  is  implied 
also  in  John  xviii.  28,  where  he  says,  "  Then 
led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  into  the  hall 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     169 

of  judgment :  and  it  was  early ;  and  they 
themselves  went  not  into  the  judgment  hall, 
lest  they  should  be  denied;  but  that  they 
might  eat  the  Passover,"  implying  that  the 
Jews  were  expecting  to  eat  the  paschal 
supper  the  ensuing  evening,  and,  consequently, 
that  they  had  not  then  eaten  it.  (For  a  full 
discussion  of  this,  see  argument  in  chap.  Hi. 
jip.105-109). 

But  it  has  been  shown  in  chap.  ii.  that 
Friday  was  the  15th  of  Nisan :  and  it  has  also 
been  shown,  that,  according  to  the  Synoptists, 
our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover  with  His  disci- 
ples at  the  proper  time,  that  is,  on  the  even- 
ing of  the  loth  of  Nisan  ;  and,  as  He  ate  it  on 
the  beginning  of  the  day,  in  the  morning  of 
which,  the  Jews  "  would  not  go  into  the  judg- 
ment hall  lest  they  should  defile  themselves, 
but  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover,"  the 
ensuing  evening,  when  the  Jews  evidently 
were  expecting  to  eat  the  Passover,  would 
have  been  the  16th  :  and  hence,  on  this  suppo- 
sition, the  Jews,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  must 
have  broken  the  Mosaic  law.     But  it  is  evi- 


170     THE   DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

dent  that  they  did  not  break  it ;  for,  according 
to  Josephus  ("  Antiquities"  book  Hi.  chap.  x. 
sect.  5),  in  his  time  (and  he  was  born  only 
seven  years  after)  "  the  Jews  sacrificed  the 
Passover  on  the  14th,  and  observed  the  day  of 
unleavened  bread  on  the  15th."  Again,  John 
(xix.  14)  speaks  of  the  day  on  which  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  as  being  the  day  of  the 
preparation  of  the  Passover :  "And  it  was 
the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  and  about 
the  sixth  hour."  The  preparation  of  the 
Passover  was  the  day  on  which  the  Passover 
was  to  be  killed,  and  on  which  it  was  pre- 
pared to  be  eaten ;  and  this  was  the  14th. 
(We  have  shown  this  fully  in  our  discussion 
on  this  part  of  our  subject,  in  chap.  Hi.  pp. 
103-111,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred.) 
But  Friday  was  the  15th ;  and  if  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  that  day,  then  this  and  not 
the  14th  must  have  been  the  "day  of  prepa- 
ration," which  is  manifestly  absurd.  On  the 
assumption,  therefore,  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  Friday,  there  is  a  plain  discrep- 
ancy between  John  and  the  other  evangelists. 


THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     171 

Robinson,  in  common  with  other  commenta- 
tors, claims  that  our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover 
with  His  disciples  on  Thursday  evening,  ac- 
cording to  our  mode  of  reckoning,  but  on  the 
beginning  of  Friday,  the  loth,  according  to  the 
reckoning  of  the  Jews  ;  whereas,  if  this  theory 
were  correct  (since,  according  to  John,  our 
Saviour  ate  it  with  His  disciples  the  "  day 
before  the  Passover,"  that  is,  the  day  before 
the  Jews  ate  it),  the  Jews  could  not  have  eaten 
the  Passover  until  the  16th. 

Dr.  Scott  belieyed  this ;  for  he  says,  "Christ 
was  crucified  on  this  day  of  holy  convocation," 
that  is,  on  the  day  in  which  they  were  com- 
manded to  eat  the  Passover,  the  15th;  for  that 
was  the  "  day  of  holy  convocation."  "  In  the 
first  day  ye  shall  have  a  holy  convocation :  ye 
shall  do  no  servile  work  therein  "  {Lev,  xxiii. 
vii.).  This  was  not  the  day  that  is  called  else- 
where "  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread," 
for  that  was  "  the  day  of  preparation,"  the 
14th,  but  the  first  of  the  seven  that  succeeded 
it ;  as  the  reader  will  see  by  taking  the  pas- 
sage   in    its    connection.     "  Seven  days    must 


172     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

ye  eat  unleavened  bread "  (commencing  with 
the  15th).  "  In  the  first  day  ye  shall  have 
a  holy  convocation." 

That  the  15  th  was  the  "  day  of  holy  con- 
vocation "  is  clearly  shown  in  the  discussion 
on  this  part  of  the  subject  in  chap.  ii.  pp. 
38-45,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

Dr.*  Scott  says,  "  Christ  was  crucified  on 
this  day  of  holy  convocation,"  and  then  adds, 
"  yet,  whether  the  Jews  calculated  the  days 
in  another  manner  or  not,  it  seems  not  to 
have  been  thus  observed  ;  bjit  the  next,  being 
the  Sabbath,  was  a  high  day,  and  probably 
was  kept  as  the  day  of  holy  convocation." 
Dr.  Scott  would  not  have  said  this  if  he  had 
not  been  attempting  to  reconcile  John's  state- 
ment with  that  of  the  other  evangelists ;  and 
to  do  this  on  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  Friday,  he  saw  apparently  no 
other  way.  And  hence  he  inferred,  that, 
although  Friday  was  the  "  day  of  holy  convo- 
cation," yet,  for  some  reason,  the  Jews  that 
year  did  not  observe  it  as  such,  but  observed 
the  day  following,  the  16th,  as  the  "  day  of 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOUR  S   CRUCIFIXION.     173 

holy  convocation."  It  will  be  seen  that  he 
puts  the  Jews  in  the  position  of  having  dis- 
obeyed the  commandment. 

Tholuck  says,  "  The  difference  "  (between 
John  and  the  other  evangelists)  "  is  one  of  the 
most  litigated  questions  in  the  criticism  of  the 
Gospels."  And  again,  he  says,  "  John  desig- 
nates the  day  on  which  the  Passover  should 
have  been  eaten,  as  that  on  which  Christ  was 
crucified.  The  contrary  date,  fixed  by  the 
Synoptists,  which  would  make  the  crucifixion 
fall  on  the  15th  of  Nisan,  that  is,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  feast,  is  encumbered  with  great 
difficulties.  The  larger  portion  of  the  modern 
critics  have  been  led,  by  an  examination  of  this 
subject,  to  the  ultimate  result  that  there  must 
be  a  mistake  on  one  or  the  other  side,  either 
on  the  part  of  John,  or  on  that  of  the  first 
three  evangelists "  ("  Tholuck  on  John"  pp. 
302,  303).  These  assertions,  with  others  that 
might  be  cited,  especially  when  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  facts,  are  sufficient  to  show, 
that,  on  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  Friday,  the  15th   of  the  Jewish 


174     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

month  Nisan,  there  is  not  only  an  apparent, 
but  a  real  discrepancy  between  John  and  the 
other  evangelists,  —  a  discrepancy  which  the 
ablest  theologians  and  commentators,  during 
more  than  eighteen  centuries,  have  found  it 
impossible  to  reconcile.  In  proof  of  this  the 
reader  is  referred  to  the  following :  — 

"It  is  not  surprising  that  some  modern 
critics  should  have  given  up  as  hopeless  the 
task  of  reconciling  this  difficulty.  Several 
have  rejected  the  narrative  of  John  (Bret- 
schneider.  Wiesse) ;  but  a  greater  number 
(especially  De  Wette,  Usteri,  Ewald,  Meyer, 
and  Thiele)  have  taken  an  opposite  course, 
and  have  been  content  with  the  notion  that 
the  first  three  evangelists  made  a  mistake,  and 
confounded  the  meal  with  the  Passover "  (see 
"Biblical,  Theological,  and  Ecclesiastical  Cyclo- 
paedia," M'Clintock  and  Strong,  vol.  vii.  p.  743. 
Also  Smith's  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible"  vol.  Hi. 
p.  2348).  From  these  quotations,  the  reader 
will  perceive  how  grave  the  difficulty  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be,  some  having  been  led  by  it 
to  reject  the  narrative  of  John,  and  others  to 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     175 

claim  that  the  first  three  evangelists  made  a 
mistake. 

The  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  John  s 
Gospel  is  beyond  question,  and  surely  he  is 
competent  authority  on  the  points  at  issue. 
Nor  is  it  possible  that  the  first  three  evangel- 
ists made  a  mistake.  Setting  aside  their  divine 
inspiration,  three  different  writers  would  not 
have  been  likely  to  make  the  same  mistake ; 
and,  being  Jews,  they  had  observed  it  from 
childhood,  and  must  have  known  what  the 
Passover  was  ;  and,  as  our  Saviour  ate  it  with 
them,  they  must  have  known  whether  he  ate 
J,he  Passover  or  not,  and  could  not  have  made 
the  mistake  of  confounding  an  ordinary  meal 
with  the  Passover. 

Moreover,  their  language  is  too  explicit  to 
admit  of  any  mistake.  "  Where  wilt  Thou 
that  we  prepare  for  Thee  to  eat  the  Passover  ?  " 
(Matt.  xxvi.  17.)  "  Where  wilt  Thou  that  we 
go  and  prepare  that  Thou  mayest  eat  the  Pass- 
over?" (Mark  xiv.  12.)  "The  Master  saith, 
'Where  is  the  guestchamber,  where  I  shall  eat 
the  Passover  with  my  disciples  ? "  (Mark  xiv. 


176     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

14.)  "  The  Master  saith,  My  time  is  at  hand  ; 
I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy  house  with  my 
disciples  "  [Matt,  xocvi.  18).  "  And  the  dis- 
ciples did  as  Jesus  had  appointed  them ;  and 
they  made  ready  the  Passover"  [Matt.  xxvi. 
19).  "And  they  made  ready  the  Passover" 
[Mark  xiv.  16).  "  And  He  sent  Peter  and 
John,  saying,  Go  and  prepare  us  the  Pass- 
over, that  we  may  eat  "  (Luke  xxii.  8). 
"  Where  is  the  guestchamber,  where  I  shall 
eat  the  Passover  with  my  disciples  ] "  (Luke 
xxii.  11.)  "And  they  made  ready  the  Pass- 
over" (Luke  xxii.  13).  "With  desire  I  have 
desired  to  eat  this  Passover  with  you  before  \ 
suffer"  (Luke  xxii.  15).  Here  are  ten  passages 
from  the  three  evangelists  which  speak  of  it 
distinctly  as  a  Passover.  If  it  was  not  a  Pass- 
over, it  was  not  a  mistake  on  their  part,  but  a 
misrepresentation.  And  to  say  that  it  was  not 
a  Passover,  is  to  place  the  evangelists  in  the 
position  of  putting  a  falsehood  into  the  mouth 
of  the  Saviour ;  for  all  three  assert  distinctly 
that  the  Saviour  called  it  a  Passover  (Matt, 
xvvi.  18;  Mark  xiv.  14;  Luke  xxii.  8,  11,  15). 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     177 

There  could  not  have  been  more  competent 
witnesses.     A  mistake  was  impossible,  and  to 
imply  that  they  misrepresented,   is   blasphe- 
mous.    In  that  event,  their  Gospels  could  not 
have  been  written  by  divine  inspiration ;  and, 
if  the  Scriptures  be  not  inspired,  there  is  taken 
from  us  the  foundation   of  our   hope.     The 
theory,  then,  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
Friday,  presenting  an  irreconcilable  discrep- 
ancy between  John  and  the  other  evangelists, 
which  has  led  distinguished  commentators  to 
such    erroneous    and   mischievous   results,   is 
most  disastrous  in  its  consequences. 

Various  attempts  have  been  made,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  theory,  to  reconcile  this  discrep- 
ancy between  John  and  the  other  evangelists, 
but  with  how  little  success  is  shown  from  the 
preceding  quotations.    It  has  been  claimed,  — 

1.  That  our  Saviour  ate  a  supper,  and  not 
the  Passover,  with  His  disciples,  the  evening 
before  His  crucifixion ; 

2.  That  He  ate  the  Passover  with  His  dis- 
ciples, and  that  the  Jews  ate  the  Passover  the 
same  evening ; 


178     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

3.  That  He  ate  a  Passover  of  His  own 
instituting,  and  not  the  legal  Passover,  and, 
consequently,  different  from  that  eaten  by  the 
Jews ; 

4.  That  He  ate  the  Passover,  but  anticipated 
the  time,  eating  it  the  day  before  the  Jews 
ate  it. 

The  first  assumption  is,  that  our  Saviour  did 
not  eat  the  Passover,  but  merely  a  supper,  with 
His  disciples.  In  the  attempt  to  show  this,  it 
is  said,  "  John  does  not  call  the  supper  which 
our  Saviour  ate  with  His  disciples  a  Passover 
supper,  but,  on  the  contrary,  says,  '  it  was 
before  the  feast  of  the  Passover : '  he  makes 
the  next  day  to  be  the  day  of  the  Passover, 
when  he  says,  in  speaking  of  the  morning  of 
the  next  day,  '  The  Jews  would  not  go  into 
the  judgment  hall,  lest  they  should  be  defiled ; 
but  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover'  [John 
cvviii.  28),  implying  that  they  had  not  then 
eaten  it.  And  in  John  xix.  14,  speaking  of 
Friday  noon,  he  says,  '  It  was  the  preparation 
of  the  Passover.' "  It  is  also  said,  that  there 
is   no   mention   of    any   lamb.     This   is   the 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     179 

strongest  evidence  that  can  be  brought  in 
support  of  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  did  not 
eat  the  Passover,  but  merely  a  supper,  with 
His  disciples;  and  it  is  by  no  means  conclusive. 
It  will  be  perceived  that  the  theory  is  based 
on  certain  expressions  found  in  the  Gospel  of 
John,  and  would  not  have  been  thought  of,  if 
it  had  not  been  to  get  over  a  difficulty.  This 
is  evident  from  the  weakness  of  the  argu- 
ments supporting  it,  and  the  admission  of 
those  who  advocate  it.  For  instance,  a  writer 
in  the  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  July,  1871,  p. 
478,  from  whom  we  have  previously  quoted, 
says,  "  That  the  words  'eating  the  Passover' 
may  denote  eating  the  paschal  lamb,  is  un- 
questionable :  this  is  clear  from  John  xviii. 
28."  It  will  be  seen  here,  that  he  quotes 
from  the  apostle  John,  to  prove  that  the  ex- 
pression used  by  the  evangelists  with  refer- 
ence to  the  supper  which  our  Saviour  ate 
with  His  disciples,  "  Where  wilt  Thou  that  we 
go  and  prepare  that  Thou  mayest  eat  the  Pass- 
over '?"  (Mark  xiv.  12)  "  And  He  sent  Peter 
and  John,  saying,  Go  and  prepare  the  Pass- 


180     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

over,  that  we  may  eat "  (Luke  xxii.  8),  "  may 
unquestionably  denote  eating  the  paschal 
lamb."  And  then,  he  says,  "  Our  business  is 
to  show  that  this  is  not  exclusively  then- 
force."  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that,  after 
admitting  that  the  language  "  unquestionably 
may  denote  eating  the  paschal  lamb,"  he 
attempts,  if  possible,  to  evade  it.  And  here, 
he  gives  the  reason. 

"  That  the  last  supper,  as  reported  by  John, 
was  not  the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  is 
obvious.  If,  as  reported  by  Luke,  it  were  the 
paschal  lamb,  we  should  have  a  glaring  con- 
tradiction between  the  two  evangelists."  The 
reader  cannot  fail  to  perceive,  that  the  reason 
that  this  writer  claims  that  our  Saviour  ate  a 
supper  and  not  the  Passover  with  His  disci- 
ples, and  the  only  reason,  is  because  of  the 
difficulty,  as  he  believes,  in  reconciling  it  with 
the  account  as  given  in  St.  John's  Gospel. 
That  he  would  gain  nothing  if  he  could  prove 
his  position,  is  evident  from  his  own  admis- 
sion. For  he  says,  "  If,  as  reported  hy 
Luke,  it  were  the  paschal  lamb,  we  should 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     181 

have  a  glaring  contradiction  between  the  two 
evangelists."  It  will  be  noticed  that  he 
states  distinctly,  that,  as  reported  by  Luke^  it 
was  the  paschal  lamb.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that,  if  he  could  prove  from  John  that  it  was 
only  a  supper,  and  not  the  paschal  lamb,  he 
would  array  John  against  Luke,  according  to 
his  own  testimony ;  and  the  "  glaring  contra- 
diction between  the  two  evangelists,"  which  he 
speaks  of,  would  still  remain.  His  position,  if 
proved,  would  not  relieve  us  of  an  iota  of  the 
difficulty. 

That  the  arguments  against  our  Saviour's 
having  eaten  the  Passover  with  His  disciples, 
and  in  favor  of  His  having  eaten  a  supper, 
are  evasive,  and  originated  in  the  desire  to 
find  some  way  in  which  to  reconcile  the  state- 
ments of  the  evangelists  with  the  statement 
of  John,  will  be  seen  also  from  the  following, 
under  the  head  of  the  Last  Supper,  in  Smith's 
"  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  vol.  hi.  p.  2347. 

"  Whether,  or  not,  the  meal  at  which  our 
Lord  instituted  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist was  the  paschal  supper  according  to  the 


182     THE  DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Law,  is  a  question  of  great  difficulty.  No 
point  in  the  Gospel  History  has  been  more 
disputed.  If  we  had  nothing  to  guide  us  but 
the  first  three  Gospels,  no  doubt  of  the  kind 
could  well  be  raised;  though  the  narratives 
may  not  be  free  from  difficulties  in  themselves. 
We  find  them  speaking,  in  accordance  with 
Jewish  usage,  of  the  day  of  the  supper,  as 
that  on  which  the  '  Passover  must  be  killed,' 
and,  as  4  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread ' 
{Matt,  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12  ;  Luke  xxii.  7). 
Each  relates  that  the  use  of  the  guest-cham- 
ber was  secured  in  the  manner  usual  with 
those  who  came  from  a  distance  to  keep  the 
festival.  Each  states  that  they  made  ready 
the  Passover,  and  that,  when  the  evening  was 
come,  our  Lord,  taking  the  place  at  the  head 
of  the  family,  sat  down  with  the  twelve.  He 
Himself  distinctly  calls  the  meal  '  this  Pass- 
over '  {Luke  xxii.  15,  16).  After  a  thanks- 
giving, He  passes  round  the  first  cup  of  wine 
{Luke  xxii.  17),  and,  when  the  supper  is 
ended,  the  usual  '  cup  of  blessing '  (compare 
Luke  xxii.   20;    1   Cor.  x.    16:    xi.  25).     A 


THE  DAY  OF   OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     183 

hymn  is  then  sung  [Matt.  xxvi.  30 ;  Mark 
adv.  26),  which,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose, 
was  the  last  part  of  the  Hallel.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  we  had  no  information  but 
that  which  is  to  be  gathered  from  St.  John's 
Gospel,  we  could  not  hesitate  to  infer  that  the 
evening  of  the  supper  was  that  of  the  13th  of 
Nisan,  the  day  preceding  that  of  the  paschal 
meal."  The  reader  will  perceive  from  this, 
that  it  is  so  plain  from  the  statements  of  the 
evangelists  that  our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover, 
and  not  a  mere  supper,  with  His  disciples,  it 
would  not  have  been  questioned,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  apparent  difficulty  of  recon- 
ciling it  with  the  account  as  given  in  the 
Gospel  of  John,  which  states  that  He  ate  it 
before  the  Passover,  and  implies  that  the 
evening  of  the  supper,  was  the  13th  of  Nisan. 
The  mistake  has  been  in  thinking  that  one  or 
the  other  of  these  statements  cannot  be  true. 
And  it  must  be  admitted,  that,  if  our  Saviour 
had  been  crucified  on  Friday,  they  could  not 
have  been  reconciled.  But,  having  been 
crucified  on  Thursday,  He  ate,  not  a  supper, 


184     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

but  the  Passover,  as  stated  by  the  evangelists, 
and  ate  it  on  Wednesday  evening,  which  was 
the  beginning  of  Thursday,  Wednesday  being 
reckoned  by  the  Jews  that  year  as  the  13th  of 
Nisan,  and  Thursday  as  the  14th,  which,  as  to 
the  time  of  His  eating  it,  is  according  to  the 
statement  of  John ;  so  that  the  statements  of 
the  other  evangelists  and  that  of  John  com- 
pletely harmonize.  This  we  shall  show  here- 
after. 

That  our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover  with  His 
disciples,  is  evident. 

1.  He  sent  His  disciples  to  make  ready  the 
Passover,  not  a  supper,  but  the  Passover 
("  And  He  sent  Peter  and  John,  saying,  Go 
and  prepare  us  the  Passover,  that  we  may 
eat."    Luke  xxii.  8). 

2.  It  was  the  proper  time.  "  The  first  day 
of  unleavened  bread,  when  the  Passover  must 
be  killed"  (Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12; 
Luke  xxii.  7). 

3.  "  They  made  ready,"  not  a  supper,  but 
"  the  Passover  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  19 ;  Mark  xiv. 
16  ;  Luke  xxii.  13). 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     185 

4.  Our  Saviour  calls  it  "the  Passover" 
[Matt.  xxvi.  18  ;  Mark  xiv.  14  ;  Luke  xxii.  8). 
He  calls  it  also,  "  this  Passover."  "  With 
desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  Passover  with 
you  before  I  suffer  "  {Luke  xxii.  15). 

5.  He  ate  it  at  that  hour  in  the  evening  in 
which  the  Passover  was  to  be  eaten.  "  And 
when  the  hour  was  come,  He  sat  down,  and 
the  twelve  apostles  with  Him "  [Luke  xxii. 
14).  As  to  there  being  no  mention  of  a 
lamb,  such  mention  was  not  necessary:  the 
term  Passover  denned  it.  "  The  day  on 
which  the  Passover  must  be  killed"  was  the 
day  on  which  the  paschal  lamb  was  killed. 
That  was  the  Passover  by  synecdoche.  When 
Peter  and  John  had  received  their  Lord's 
command  to  go  and  prepare  the  Passover,  it  is 
said,  "  They  went,  and  found  as  He  had  said 
unto  them:  and  they  made  ready  the  Pass- 
over "  (Luke  xxii.  13)  ;  that  is,  procured  a 
lamb  and  prepared  it  for  the  purpose,  accord- 
ing to  the  Law.  That  our  Saviour  ate  the 
Passover  with  His  disciples  is  as  plain  as  lan- 
guage can  make  it. 


186     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

The  second  theory  set  forth  in  the  vain 
attempt  to  reconcile  the  apparent  discrepan- 
cy between  John  and  the  other  evangelists, 
on  the  false  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  on  Friday,  is,  that  He  ate  the  Pass- 
over at  the  same  time  with  the  Jews.  And, 
to  show  this,  the  attempt  is  made  to  explain 
away  the  passage  in  John. 

Thus  it  is  said  that  the  expression  "  before 
the  feast  of  the  Passover "  [John  xiii.  1)  has 
reference,  not  to  the  paschal  supper,  but  to  the 
entire  festival  of  unleavened  bread,  which 
continued  seven  days.  To  this  there  is  an 
insuperable  objection.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  expression  in  John  xiii.  1,  "Before  the 
feast  of  the  "  Passover,"  marks  the  time  after 
the  close  of  the  supper ;  for  we  read  in  con- 
tinuation [John  xiii.  2),  "  And  supper  being 
ended."  Now,  the  argument  referred  to,  as  it 
will  be  seen,  is  based  on  the  assumed  fact 
that  our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover,  or  true  pas- 
chal supper,  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  eaten 
by  the  Jews ;  and  hence,  those  who  advance  it 
are  met  with  the  obvious  difficulty  in  reconcil- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     187 

ing  it  with  the  expression  in  John,  "  before 
the  Passover ;  "  for  this,  as  we  have  shown,  was 
after  the  supper  was  ended :  and  if  it  was,  as 
they  assume,  the  Passover  supper,  and  was 
eaten  at  the  same  time  that  the  Jews  ate  it,  it 
could  not  have  been  before  the  Passover.  A 
thing  cannot  be  before  itself.  Hence  they 
say  the  expression  "  before  the  Passover " 
means,  not,  as  it  says,  "  before  the  Passover," 
or  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  but  before  the 
entire  festival  of  unleavened  bread,  which 
continued  seven  days. 

Now,  the  insuperable  objection  is  this. 
The  Passover  meal  was  the  beginning  of  the 
Passover  festival,  and  the  most  prominent  part 
of  it ;  so  prominent  that  it  gave  the  name  to 
the  entire  festival.  And  as  the  Passover  meal 
was  ended  at  the  time  to  which  the  expres- 
sion "  before  the  Passover "  refers,  if  the 
Jews  had  eaten  it  at  the  same  time,  it  could 
not  he  said  to  be  before  the  feast  (or  festival) 
of  unleavened  bread.  That  cannot  be  before 
a  thing  which  takes  place  after  it  has  com- 
menced. 


188     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Again,  the  expression,  "  And  they  them- 
selves went  not  into  the  judgment  hall,  lest 
they  should  be  denied ;  but  that  they  might  eat 
the  Passover  "  [John  xmii,  28),  is  interpreted 
to  mean,  not  that  they  might  eat  the  paschal, 
or  Passover,  supper,  but  that  they  might  keep 
or  celebrate  the  Passover  festival,  or  eat  the 
Passover  sacrifices  throughout  the  remaining 
days. 

This  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  forced, 
and  would  not  have  been  thought  of,  if  it  had 
not  been  to  relieve  them  of  a  difficulty.  That 
it  is  inadmissible  will  be  seen  by  referring  to 
our  discussion  on  this  passage  in  chap.  iii.  pp. 
105-103,  where  we  have  shown  conclusively, 
that  the  term  Passover  in  this  passage  signi- 
fies, not  the  entire  festival,  but  the  eating  of 
the  paschal  lamb,  and  that  the  defilement 
could  not  have  reference  to  the  entire  festival, 
since  the  ordinary  meals  of  the  festival  were 
to  be  eaten  without  regard  to  purity.  All 
were  to  eat  unleavened  bread  throughout  the 
festival,  the  clean  and  the  unclean ;  and  any 
one  not  eating  it  was  to  be  cut  off  from  among 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     189 

the  people.  That  the  word  Passover  in  the 
passage  under  consideration  does  not  refer 
to  the  entire  festival,  or  to  an  ordinary  meal 
of  the  festival,  will  be  seen  also  from  the 
remarks  of  Benson,  which  Dr.  Townsend 
quotes  and  indorses  [Townsend' 's  "Notes  on 
the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels"  p.  156).  He 
says,  "  No  critical  distortion  appears  to  me 
capable  of  giving  to  John  xviii.  28  —  *««  avtol 

ov%  eloip.dov  elg  to  Ttpanapiov  iva  [ir]  [iiavdaGiv  aTX  ha 

cpdymai  to  nuc^a  —  any  other  meaning  or  transla- 
tion than  this :  '  And  they  themselves  went 
not  into  the  judgment  hall,  lest  they  should 
be  defiled ;  but  that  they  might  eat  the  paschal 
offering,'  the  sacrifice  of  the  Passover.  The 
word  naaxa,  when  alone ,  is  not  always  used 
exclusively  for  the  paschal  lamb,  but  often  in 
a  more  enlarged  and  extended  sense  for  the 
whole  feast  of  unleavened  bread;  but  the 
phrase  (pays*  to  maxa,  though  used  by  each  of 
the  first  three  evangelists,  and  more  than 
once,  is  never  applied  except  to  the  eating  of  the 
paschal  offering  itself  at  the  time  appointed  in 
remembrance  of  the  Lord's  Passover  in  Egypt" 


190     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

The  words  of  John,  therefore,  above  quoted, 
show  plainly,  that  our  Saviour  and  His  disci- 
ples did  not  eat  the  Passover  at  the  same 
time  with  the  rest  of  the  Jews. 

There  is  another  passage :  "  And  it  was 
the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  and  about  the 
sixth  hour"  (John  xix.  14),  referring  to  the 
day  of  His  crucifixion,  which  would  lead  any 
unbiassed  reader  to  suppose  it  was  the  prepara- 
tion for  the  Passover  festival,  by  the  putting 
of  the  leaven  out  of  their  houses,  the  killing 
of  the  paschal  lamb,  etc.,  which  occurred  the 
day  before  the  Passover  was  eaten.  An  at- 
tempt has  been  made,  also,  to  explain  this 
away,  by  saying  that  it  was  not  the  "  prepara- 
tion of  the  Passover,"  as  it  reads,  but  of  the 
paschal  Sabbath  ;  that  is,  as  it  is  claimed,  of  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  that  occurred  in 
the  Passover  week.  The  insuperable  objec- 
tion against  this  is,  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
in  the  Passover  week,  in  which  our  Saviour 
was  crucified,  was  not  the  paschal  Sabbath, 
but,  as  we  have  shown  in  chap.  ii.  pp.  38-45, 
the  paschal  Sabbath  occurred  the  day  previous, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAYIOUR's   CRUCIFIXION.     191 

on  Friday,  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan,  for  the  reason  that  the  paschal  Sabbath 
was  the  day  on  which  the  paschal  lamb  was 
eaten,  the  "  day  of  holy  convocation,"  the  first 
of  the  seven  days  of  the  feast  succeeding  the 
day  of  preparation,  in  which  unleavened  bread 
was  eaten,  the  "  great "  or  "  high  Sabbath  "  of 
the  festival,  which  always  occurred  on  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan ;  and  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  in  that  year  fell 
on  the  16th.  Hence  it  will  be  perceived,  that, 
as  the  Passover  day  was  not  only  a  Sabbath 
(as  we  have  shown  in  the  pages  referred  to) 
on  whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might  fall, 
but  also  a  "  high  "  Sabbath,  the  expression  in 
John,  "  preparation  of  the  Passover,"  and  that 
of  the  other  evangelists,  "  preparation  for  the 
Sabbath  "  ( Mark  xv.  42  ;  Luke  xxiii.  54),  com- 
pletely harmonize,  and  are  in  exact  accordance 
with  the  literal  interpretation. 

The  third  theory  is,  that  our  Saviour  ate  a 
Passover  with  His  disciples,  but  not  the  pre- 
scribed Passover. 

We  answer,  First \  There  is  no  intimation 


192     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

that  this  was  not  the  regular  Passover.  Sec- 
ond, It  is  not  consistent  with  the  character  of 
our  Saviour  to  suppose  that  He  would  observe 
a  Passover  different  from  that  which  God  had 
commanded.  Third,  But  one  Passover  was 
appointed,  and  any  thing  different  from  that 
would  not  be  the  Passover.  Fourth,  No  rea- 
son can  be  given  why  He  should  eat  a  differ- 
ent Passover.  To  claim  that  He  ate  a  different 
Passover,  is  to  claim  that  He  ate  a  supper  with 
His  disciples  without  the  paschal  lamb  (which 
we  have  shown  to  be  untrue),  and  that  He 
falsely  called  it  the  Passover.  Fifth,  And 
here  we  quote  the  argument  of  Dr.  Newcomb, 
Archbishop  of  Armagh,  on  Luke  xxii.  15 : 
"  And  He  said  unto  them,  With  desire  have  I 
desired  to  eat  this  Passover  with  you  before  I 
suffer."  Dr.  Newcomb  says,  "It  is  to  be  noted 
that  they  had  now  sat  down  to  eat  that  Pass- 
over which  had  been  before  prepared,  and 
that  every  word  which  is  spoken  is  peculiarly 
proper  to  the  occasion.  '  With  desire,'  says 
our  Lord,  '  have  I  desired  (zovzo  %b  ndaxa  yuyeiv) 
to  eat  this  very  Passover ; '  not  loOUiv  to  naoxa, 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     193 

6  to  eat  this  Passover,'  or  something  commem- 
orative of  it,  but  xovTo  xb  7td<jxa,  '  this  very  Pass- 
over : '  and  it  is  no  mean  proof  that  they  were 
then  in  the  act  of  eating  the  flesh  of  the  pas- 
chal lamb,  from  the  use  of  the  word  yayelv, 
which  is  the  most  proper  to  the  eating  of 
flesh ;  as  iadUiv  signifies  eating  in  general,  or 
eating  bread,  pulse,  etc.  The  same  word  in 
reference  to  the  same  act  of  eating  the  Pass- 
over (not  to  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  holy 
supper)  is  used  in  verse  sixteenth :  '  For  I  say 
unto  you,  that  I  will  not  any  more  eat  thereof 
(ov  ^  qdy(o  ££  avxov) .  i  I  will  not  eat  of  him  or 
it  (viz.,  the  paschal  lamb)  until  it  is  fulfilled 
in  the  kingdom  of  God ; '  that  is,  this  shall  be 
the  last  Passover  I  -shall  celebrate  on  earth." 
If  some  should  think  the  argument  of  Arch- 
bishop Newcomb  on  the  use  of  the  words 
cpayetv  and  lodieiv  somewhat  strained,  they  will 
perceive  that  it  does  not  materially  affect  the 
question.  That  our  Saviour  did  not  eat  a 
different  Passover  is  proved  conclusively  by 
what  has  been  said  before.  It  is  plain,  there- 
fore, that  He  did  not  eat  a  different  Passover, 


194     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^   CRUCIFIXION. 

but  the  veritable  Passover  appointed  under  the 
Mosaic  legislation. 

The  fourth  theory,  set  forth  in  the  attempt 
to  reconcile  the  account  as  given  by  John  with 
that  of  the  other  evangelists,  is,  that  our  Lord 
did  eat  the  Passover  that  year,  but  not  at  the 
same  time  with  the  Jews.  To  this  we  assent. 
But  on  the  false  assumption  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  Friday,  so  far  from  clearing 
up  the  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  apparent 
discrepancies  between  John  and  the  other 
evangelists,  it  only  makes  it  the  more  com- 
plicated.    To  illustrate :  — 

Our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover  with  His 
disciples  the  evening  before  His  crucifixion, 
which,  on  the  assumption  that  He  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday,  must  have  been  Thursday 
evening.  This  is  the  general  belief.  Our 
Saviour,  then,  must  have  sent  the  disciples 
Peter  and  John  to  prepare  for  Him  the  Pass- 
over some  time  in  the  day  of  Thursday.  This, 
by  general  consent,  is  believed  to  have  been 
the  14th  of  the  month  Nisan  [see  Robinson's 
11  English  Harmony  of  the  Gospels"  Notes,  p. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     195 

191 ;  Lange,  "Notes  on  Matthew''  Am.  Ed., p. 
454 ;  Smith's  "  New  Testament  History"  Stu- 
dents Series,  book  ii.  chap.  xi.  p.  314  ;  see,  also, 
argument  in  chap,  ii.,  showing  that  Friday  was  the 
\bth  of  Nisan,  and,  consequently,  that  Thursday 
must  have  been  the  \±th).  Now,  if  the  Jews 
did  not  kill  the  Passover  until  Friday,  and  ate 
it  on  Friday  evening,  then  they  killed  it  on 
the  15th,  —  not  on  the  14th,  —  and  must  have 
violated  the  Jewish  law,  which  was  that  they 
should  kill  it  on  the  14th.  And  they  must 
have  broken  the  law,  not  only  in  killing  it, 
but  also  in  eating  it ;  for,  instead  of  eating  it 
on  the  beginning  of  the  15th,  the  day  of  un- 
leavened bread,  the  day  in  which  (as  we  have 
shown)  the  Passover  was  to  be  eaten,  they 
must,  on  this  hypothesis,  have  eaten  it  on  the 
beginning  of  the  16th.  Now,  we  know  that 
(in  the  time  of  Josephus,  who  lived  but  a  few 
years  after  Christ)  they  killed  the  Passover  on 
the  14th,  as  they  were  commanded  {"Antiqui- 
ties" book  ii.  chap.  xiv.  sect.  6  ;  Hi.  x.  5  ;  xi.  iv. 
8  ;  "  Wars,"  v.  Hi.  1).  How,  then,  are  we  to 
account  for  such  a  violation  as,  on  this  theory, 


196     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

must  have  taken  place  at  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  crucifixion  1 

Moreover,  such  a  violation  of  the  require- 
ments of  the  law  is  not  in  keeping  with  the 
Jewish  character.  They  were  strict  in  keep- 
ing the  very  letter  of  the  Law. 

That  our  Saviour  observed  the  Passover  at 
the  proper  time  is  evident ;  for  the  time  that 
He  sent  Peter  and  John  to  make  preparation 
is  said  to  have  been  "  the  first  day  of  un- 
leavened bread,"  "  when  the  Passover  must  be 
killed."  On  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  Friday,  this  opinion  that  our 
Saviour  ate  the  Passover,  but  not  at  the  same 
time  with  the  Jews  (though  in  itself  correct), 
does  not  clear  up  the  difficulty,  because  it 
makes  our  Saviour  to  have  eaten  it  at  the 
wrong  time. 

We  are,  however,  presented  with  the  unde- 
niable fact,  that  our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover 
with  His  disciples  before  the  time  of  its  being 
eaten  by  the  Jews;  that  they  did  not  eat  it 
until  after  His  crucifixion :  and  we  have  seen, 
that,  on  the  theory  that  our  Saviour  was  cm- 


THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     197 

cified  on  Friday,  this  difficulty  cannot  be 
reconciled. 

Now,  if  we  can  show  that  our  Saviour  and 
the  Jews,  though  keeping  the  Passover  at 
different  times,  both  observed  it  on  what  might 
be  regarded  as  the  proper  day,  and  that  every 
passage  in  John  bearing  on  this  subject  is 
thus  made  to  correspond  with  the  assertions 
of  the  other  evangelists,  it  will  satisfy  all  the 
conditions  of  the  problem,  and,  by  reconciling 
this  apparent  discrepancy,  will  furnish  a  yet 
stronger  proof  that  the  Scriptures  have  been 
written  by  divine  inspiration. 

On  the  theory  that  He  was  crucified  on 
Thursday,  which  we  have  shown  to  be  the 
correct  one,  such  an  explanation  can  readily 
be  given.  As  we  have  shown,  He  was  cruci- 
fied on  Thursday,  and,  of  course,  ate  the 
Passover  with  His  disciples  on  Wednesday 
evening,  the  beginning  of  Thursday,  the  15th, 
according  to  the  true  appearance  of  the  moon  ; 
while  the  Jews  ate  it  a  day  later,  on  Thursday 
evening,  the  beginning  of  Friday,  which  was 
observed  by  them  that  year  as  the  15th,  ac- 


198     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

cording  to  the  announcement  or  decree  of  the 
Sanhedrim. 

We  know  that  objections  are  made  to  this, 
and  these  objections  we  will  now  consider. 

Smith  says,  in  his  "  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,"  vol.  iii.  p.  2349,  "It  has  been  con- 
jectured that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  had 
gone  wrong  in  calculating  the  true  Passover 
day,  placing  it  a  day  too  late,  and  that  our 
Lord  ate  the  Passover  on  what  was  really  the 
14th,  but  what  commonly  passed  as  the  13th. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Bezer,  Bucer,  Calo- 
vius,  and  Scaliger.  It  is  favored  by  Stier. 
But  it  is  utterly  unsupported  by  historical 
testimony."  It  will  be  noticed,  in  the  above 
quotation,  that  the  theory  advanced  agrees 
with  the  one  that  we  have  presented,  in  mak- 
ing the  time  of  the  Passover,  as  observed  by 
the  Jews,  "  a  day  too  late,"  but  differs,  in 
making  our  Saviour  to  have  eaten  the  Passover 
"  on  what  was  really  the  14th,  but  what  com- 
monly passed  as  the  13th."  Whereas,  our 
theory,  which  we  believe  to  be  correct,  is,  that 
He  ate  it  on  what  was  really  the  15th,  but  on 


THE   DAY   OF   OUR    SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.      199 

the  day  that  was  observed  that  year  by  the 
Jews  as  the  14th. 

Our  purpose  here,  however,  is  particularly 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  ob- 
jection raised  against  it,  because,  as  it  is 
claimed,  it  is  unsupported  by  historical  testi- 
mony. 

We  propose  to  show  that  the  theory  we 
have  presented  is  not  ;;  conjecture,''  but  fact, 
and  that  whether  it  is  supported  by  historical 
testimony  or  not,  has  but  little  to  do  with  the 
question.  There  are  other  circumstances 
connected  with  our  Saviour's  death  of  which 
it  may  be  said  that  they  are  unsupported  by 
historical  testimonv. 

For  instance,  we  read  (Matt.  xivii.  -45  ; 
Mark  xv.  33  ;  Luke  xriii.  14 )  that  "  from  the 
sixth  hour  there  was  darkness  over  all  the 
land  unto  the  ninth  hour  ;  "  and  (Matt,  i 
51  ;  Mark  xv.  38  ;  Luke  xxiii.  45)  that  ;;  the 
veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain  ;  "  and 
again  (Matt,  xxvii.  51-53).  that  "the  earth 
did  quake,  and  the  rocks  rent ;  and  the  graves 
were  opened ;  and  many  bodies  of  the  saints 


200     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

which  slept  arose,  and  came  out  of  the  graves 
after  His  resurrection,  and  went  into  the  holy 
city,  and  appeared  unto  many."  All  which  is 
unsupported  by  historical  testimony. 

We  know  that  the  Christian  Fathers  of  the 
first  century  appealed  to  a  statement  which  is 
found  in  the  works  of  Phlegon,  a  chronicler 
under  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  and  that  Euse- 
bius  quotes  these  words  under  the  date  of  the 
4th  year  of  the  202d  Olympiad.  "There 
occurred  the  greatest  darkening  of  the  sun 
which  had  ever  been  known.  It  became 
night  at  midday,  so  that  the  stars  shone  in  the 
heavens.  There  was  a  great  earthquake  in 
Bythinia  which  destroyed  a  part  of  Nicaea." 
It  is  evident  that  this  cannot  have  been  the 
darkness  that  occurred  at  our  Saviour's  cruci- 
fixion, for  He  was  born  in  the  fourth  year  of 
the  193d  Olympiad;  whereas  this  is  alleged  to 
have  occurred  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  202d 
Olympiad,  and  would  make  Him  to  have  been 
thirty-six  years  old  at  the  time  of  His  cruci- 
fixion, instead  of  thirty-three  and  a  half:  so 
that  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  date  is  fixed 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     201 

from  two  and  a  half  to  three  years  later. 
That  the  date  does  not  agree  with  the  time  of 
the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour,  was  the  opinion 
of  Wiesseler,  p.  388,  and  of  Brinkmeyer 
("Chronologie"  p.  208).  Again,  the  darkness 
mentioned  by  Phlegon  cannot  have  been  the 
darkness  that  occurred  at  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  crucifixion,  because  he  speaks  of  it 
as  an  actual  eclipse ;  says  that  this  eclipse 
"surpassed  all  others  ever  seen."  For  this 
reason  Hug  and  Wiesseler  ("  Chronologie 
Synopse"  p.  388)  rejected  it.  There  could 
not  have  been  an  eclipse  at  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  crucifixion,  because  it  occurred  at 
the  time  of  the  Passover  full  moon.  An 
eclipse  of  the  sun,  being  caused  by  the  moons 
coming  between  the  earth  and  the  sun,  must 
necessarily  take  place  when  the  dark  side  of 
the  moon  is  turned  towards  us.  The  moon 
then  being  at  the  full,  the  darkness  could  not 
have  been  caused  by  an  eclipse  of  the  sun, 
but  was  caused,  no  doubt,  miraculously.  It 
may  have  been  by  a  mysterious  thickening 
of  the  atmosphere,  a  cause  similar,  perhaps,  to 


202     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

that  of  the  "  dark  day"  in  1780.  Tertullian, 
Origen,  Rufinus,  also  boldly  appeal  to  the 
Roman  archives  for  the  proof  of  the  eclipse  of 
the  snn  at  the  time  of  the  Saviours  death. 
But,  as  we  have  said,  an  eclipse  of  the  sun 
was  not  possible  at  that  time.  The  full  moon 
being  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  earth  from 
the  sun,  the  sun  could  not  have  been  eclipsed 
by  it.  The  darkness,  then,  in  common  with 
the  other  remarkable  events  which  attended 
our  Saviour's  crucifixion,  is  unsupported  by 
historical  testimony.  But  we  do  not  reject 
them  on  that  account.  There  is  nothing  im- 
probable in  their  occurrence,  and  the  unani- 
mous testimony  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels 
must  silence  all  questions  in  regard  to  them. 
Neither,  because  it  may  not  be  supported 
by  historical  testimony,  should  we  reject  the 
fact  that  our  Saviour  observed  the  Passover 
on  Wednesday  evening,  the  beginning  of  the 
15th  of  Nisan,  according  to  the  true  appear- 
ance of  the  moon,  and  that  the  Jews,  that 
year,  observed  it  a  day  later,  on  Thursday 
evening,  the  beginning  of  the  day  appointed 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     203 

to  be  observed  as  the  15th,  by  the  announce- 
ment or  decree  of  the  Sanhedrim.  It  is  not 
to  be  expected  that  there  would  be  any  his- 
torical account  of  it.  Except  in  its  relation 
to  the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour  and  the 
Gospel  narrative  (in  which  the  Jews  who 
regarded  Christ  as  an  impostor  could  have  felt 
no  interest),  it  was  a  matter  of  but  little  im- 
portance, altogether  too  trivial  to  have  been 
made  a  matter  of  history. 

We  have  abundant  proof,  that,  by  a  special 
decree  of  the  Sanhedrim,  the  Jews  sometimes 
observed,  as  the  15th  of  Nisan,  a  day  later 
than  the  true  appearance  of  the  moon  would 
indicate:  and  yet  we  have  no  historical  testi- 
mony as  to  the  particular  years  in  which  this 
was  done;  that  is,  we  have  historical  testi- 
mony as  to  the  fact,  but  not  as  to  the  precise 
year  or  years  of  its  occurrence. 

We  now  proceed  to  show  that  there  was 
such  a  custom  among  the  Jews,  and  that,  with- 
out doubt,  such  an  observance  took  place  at 
the  time  of  the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour. 
As  He  was  crucified  on  Thursday,  He  ate 


204     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

the  Passover  with  His  disciples  on  Wednesday 
evening,  and  mnst  have  sent  Peter  and  John 
some  time  in  the  day  of  Wednesday  to  pre- 
pare it.  But  it  is  distinctly  said  that  this  was 
the  "  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  "  (that  is, 
the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread) 
"when  the  Passover  must  be  killed,"  reckoned 
as  one  of  the  days  of  the  festival,  because  it 
was  "the  day  of  preparation."  [Matt.  xxvi. 
17 ;  Mark  xiv.  12  ;  Luke  xxii.  7).  And  as  the 
Passover  was  to  be  killed  "  between  the  two 
evenings,"  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan  [Exod.  xii.  6 ;  Lev.  xxiii.  5 ;  Num.  ix. 
3),  it  (Wednesday)  must  have  been  the  14th. 

Now  it  is  believed  that  our  Saviour  was 
crucified  in  the  thirty-fourth  year  of  His  age. 
Indeed,  the  proof  of  this  is  positive.  And  the 
Christian  era,  according  to  Archbishop  Usher 
and  the  modern  chronologers  generally,  com- 
mences four  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ 
[see "  Religious  Encyclopedia" p.  44). 

This,  then,  would  make  the  date  of  His 
crucifixion  to  have  been  A.D.  30,  according  to 
the  generally  received  opinion.     And  it  is  a 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     205 

remarkable  fact  that  Roger  Bacon,  Mann,  and 
Scaliger,  Dodwell,  and  Fergnson,  who  have 
calculated  the  Passover  full  moons,  which 
determine  the  14th  of  Nisan  from  A.D.  26  to 
A.D.  36,  a  period  of  ten  years,  all  agree  that 
in  A.D.  30  it  fell  on  Wednesday,  while  in 
every  year,  with  that  exception,  they  differ, 
some  claiming  that  it  fell  on  one  day  of  the 
week,  and  some  on  another.1  This  is  strong 
presumptive  evidence  that  the  14th  of  Nisan, 
in  the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  was 
Wednesday.  And  hence,  being  "  the  first  day 
of  unleavened  bread,  when  the  Passover  must 
be  killed,"  it  was  the  day  when  He  sent  Peter 
and  John  to  prepare  for  Him  the  Passover. 
And,  as  He  ate  the  Passover  with  His  disciples 
that  evening  (Wednesday  evening,  according 
to  our  reckoning,  but  the  beginning  of  Thurs- 

1  The  calculation  of  the  Passover  full  moons  must  neces- 
sarily be  uncertain,  for  we  know  not  what  order  the  Jews 
followed ;  and,  as  some  calculate  by  astronomical  full  moons, 
and  others  by  cycles,  the  results  differ.  We  are  told  that  the 
manner  of  reckoning  which  prevailed  in  the  time  of  Epipha- 
nius  was  different  from  the  Calippic,  the  Hyppolytan,  and  from 
that  which  the  Jews  now  follow. 


206     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 


day,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  the  Jews), 
He  ate  it,  according  to  the  commandment,  on 
the  beginning  of  the  15th,  the  day  of  un- 
leavened bread  [Lev.  ocxiii.  6 ;  Num.  xxviii.  1 7). 
This  is  seen  from  the  fact,  so  often  referred 
to,  that  the  Jews  reckoned  their  days  from 
evening  to  evening  [Lev.  xxiii.  32). 

That  our  Saviour  ate  the  Passover  the 
evening  before  the  Jews  ate  it,  not  only 
coincides  with  the  testimony  of  John,  but  was 
the  general  opinion  of  the  ancients.  Tertul- 
lian,  Clement,  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Apolli- 
narius,  Euthymius,  and  others ;  of  various 
members  also  of  the  church  of  Kome,  as 
Lamy,  Calmet ;  and  of  the  Protestant  theo- 
logians, Cappellus,  Lampe,  Deyling,  Gude, 
and  indeed  of  about  all  theologians  until  the 
last  century  (see  "  TholucJc  on  John"  p.  306), 
though  they  believed  that  our  Saviour  antici- 
pated the  Passover  by  eating  it  before  the 
time. 

The  explanation  which  we  have  given 
agrees  with  the  statement  of  the  evangelists, 
—  makes  Him  to  have  eaten  it  on  the  15th  of 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     207 

the   month   Nisan,  "  the    day  of  unleavened 
bread." 

But  the  question  arises,  Why  did  not  the 
Jews  observe  the  Passover  at  the  same  time  \ 
In  answer  to  this,  we  refer  to  Townsend's 
"  Notes  on  the  Gospels,"  p.  158,  where  he 
says,  "  The  learned  Cudworth,  in  his  admir- 
able treatise  on  the  Jewish  Passover,  has 
proved  from  the  '  Talmud,'  '  Mishna,'  and 
some  of  the  most  reputable  of  the  Jewish 
rabbins,  that  the  Jews  in  ancient  times  reck- 
oned the  new  moons,  not  according  to  astro- 
nomical exactness,  but  according  to  the  cfdcig, 
or  moon's  appearance  ;  and,  as  this  appearance 
might  happen  a  day  later  than  the  real  time, 
consequently,  there  might  be  a  whole  day  of 
difference  in  the  time  of  celebrating  one  of 
these  feasts,  which  depended  on  a  particular 
day  of  the  month,  the  days  of  the  month 
being  counted  from  the  appearance  of  the  new 
moon."  Townsend  says  further,  "As  he 
describes  the  manner  of  doing  this,  both  from 
the  Babylonish  '  Talmud '  and  from  Maimoni- 
des,  I  shall  give  an  extract  from  this  part  of 


208     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

his  work,  that  my  readers  may  have  the 
whole  argument  before  them"  ("Notes  on  the 
Gospels"  p.  158).  And  then  follows  this 
extract :  "In  the  great,  or  outer  court,  there 
was  a  house  called  Beth  Yazek,  where  the 
Senate  sat  all  the  thirtieth  day  of  every  month, 
to  receive  the  witnesses  of  the  moon's  appear- 
ance, and  to  examine  them.  If  there  came 
approved  witnesses  on  the  thirtieth  day  who 
could  state  they  had  seen  the  new  moon,  the 
chief  man  of  the  Senate  stood  up,  and  cried, 
enpD,  'mekuddash,'  it  is  sanctified;  and  the 
people  standing  by,  caught  the  word  from  him, 
and  cried,  '  mekuddash,  mekuddash.'  But 
if,  when  the  consistory  had  sat  all  the  day, 
there  came  no  approved  witnesses  of  the  ydoig, 
or  appearance  of  the  new  moon,  then  they 
made  an  intercalation  of  one  day  in  the  former 
month,  and  decreed  ■  the  following  one  and 
thirtieth  day  to  be  the  calends.  But  if,  after 
the  fourth  or  fifth  day,  or  even  before  the  end 
of  the  month,  respectable  witnesses  came  from 
far,  and  testified  they  had  seen  the  new  moon 
in  its   due  time,  the   Senate  were  bound   to 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION.     209 

alter  the  beginning  of  the  month,  and  reckon 
it  a  day  sooner;  viz.,  from  the  thirtieth  day. 
As  the  Senate  were  very  unwilling  to  be  at 
the  trouble  of  a  second  consecration  when 
they  had  even  fixed  on  a  wrong  day,  and 
received  very  reluctantly  the  testimony  of  such 
witnesses  as  those  last  mentioned,  they  after- 
wards made  a  statute  to  this  effect,  that,  what- 
ever time  the  Senate  should  conclude  on,  for 
the  calends  of  the  month,  though  it  were 
certain  they  were  in  the  wrong,  yet  all  were 
bound  to  order  their  feasts  according  to  it" 
(Ibid.  p.  158). 

"  This,"  says  Townsend,  "  Dr.  Cudworth 
supposes  actually  took  place  in  the  time  of 
our  Lord;  and,  as  it  is  not  likely  that  our 
Lord  would  submit  to  this  perversion  of  the 
original  custom,  following  the  true  <p«""ff  or 
appearance  of  the  new  moon,  confirmed  by 
sufficient  witnesses,  He  and  His  disciples  ate 
the  Passover  on  that  day ;  but  the  Jews,  fol- 
lowing the  pertinacious  decree  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim, did  not  eat  it  till  the  day  following." 
He  adds,  "  Dr.  Cudworth  further  shows  from 


210     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Epiphanius,  that  there  was  contention  (dopvfiog^ 
a  tumult,  among  the  Jews  about  the  Passover 
that  very  year."  Hence  we  have  reason  to 
believe  that  the  real  paschal  day  observed  by 
our  Lord  and  His  disciples,  who  adopted  the 
true  q>dcig,  was  the  antecedent  evening  to  that 
observed  by  the  Jews,  who  acted  on  the  decree 
of  the  Sanhedrim. 

That  the  Jews'  method  of  determining  the 
new  moons,  and  consequently  the  feast-days, 
has  been  shown  correctly  by  Dr.  Cud  worth, 
will  be  seen  also  from  the  following :  — 

John  Allen,  in  his  treatise  entitled  "Modern 
Judaism,"  p.  374,  tells  us  that  Dean  Prideaux 
and  others  favor  the  hypothesis  of  the  rab- 
bins, which  is,  that  the  commencement  and 
length  of  the  month  were  determined  from 
time  to  time  by  the  decision  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim, and  that  they  have  favored  us  with  a 
particular  account  of  the  way  in  which  they 
say  the  business  was  managed.  If  we  were 
asked  why,  instead  of  accepting  it  on  the 
testimony  of  the  rabbins,  who  surely  ought  to 
know  the  mode  of  reckoning  that  was  prac- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     211 

tised  by  their  own  countrymen,  he  calls  it  a 
hypothesis,  we  should  say  it  was  probably 
because  his  mind  was  biassed  in  favor  of  the 
theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Fri- 
day ;  that  this  led  him  to  prejudge  it,  because 
such  a  practice  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion 
of  our  Saviour  would  necessarily  conflict  with 
this  theory.  Prejudice  often  blinds  the  eye 
of  the  mind  to  evidence  that  otherwise  would 
be  convincing,  or  at  the  least  distorts  it,  until  it 
becomes,  in  a  sense,  like  objects  seen  through 
irregularities  in  the  window-pane.  But  to  the 
testimony ;  and  here  we  insert  his  quotation 
from  the  rabbins :  "  Our  nation  heretofore, 
not  observing  the  rules  of  any  fixed  calcula- 
tion, celebrated  the  feast  of  the  new  moon 
according  to  the  tpdats,  or  first  appearance  of 
the  moon,  which  was  done  in  compliance  with 
God's  command,  as  our  received  traditions 
inform  us.  Hence  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
first  appearance  was  not  to  be  determined 
only  by  rules  of  art,  but  also  by  the  testimony 
of  such  persons  as  deposed,  before  a  select 
number  of  the  Sanhedrim,  or  Great  Senate, 


212     THE   DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

that  they  had  seen  the  moon.  For  a  com- 
mittee of  three,  being  appointed  by  the  said 
Sanhedrim  to  receive  the  depositions  of  the 
persons  aforesaid,  after  having  calculated 
what  time  the  moon  might  possibly  appear, 
despatched  some  persons  into  high  and  ven- 
turesome places  to  observe,  and,  accordingly, 
to  give  in  their  evidence  concerning  the  first 
appearance  of  the  moon.  If  these  persons 
returned  on  the  30th  and  testified  that  they 
had  seen  the  moon,  and  if,  after  a  strict  exami- 
nation of  their  reports,  the  committee  found 
that  they  agreed  in  their  evidence,  then  they 
consecrated  the  thirtieth  day,  and  that  was 
observed  as  the  day  of  the  new  moon ;  but  if 
they  did  not  return  until  the  31st,  and  then 
gave  their  evidence,  that  day  was  consecrated 
and  observed  as  the  day  of  the  new  moon. 
And,  notwithstanding,  if  no  evidence  was 
given  on  the  thirty-first  day,  yet  was  it 
appointed  by  the  Senate  and  observed  as  the 
first  day  of  the  moon,  though  not  consecrated ; 
for  the  consecration  depended  so  entirely  upon 
the  phasis  of  the  moon  that  it  could  not  be 
performed  without  it. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     213 

"  As  soon  as  the  new  moon  was  either  con- 
secrated or  appointed  to  be  observed,  notice 
was  given  by  the  Sanhedrim  to  the  rest  of  the 
nation  what  day  had  been  fixed  for  the  new 
moon  or  first  day  of  the  month  ;  because  that 
was  to  be  the  rule  and  measure  according  to 
which  they  were  obliged  to  keep  their  feasts 
and  fasts  in  every  month  respectively.  This 
notice  was  given,  in  time  of  peace,  by  firing 
beacons  set  up  for  that  purpose,  which  was 
looked  upon  as  the  readiest  way  of  communi- 
cation ;  but  in  time  of  war,  when  all  places 
were  full  of  enemies  who  made  use  of  beacons 
to  amuse  our  nation  with,  it  was  thought  fit  to 
discontinue  it,  and  to  delegate  some  men  on 
purpose  to  go  and  signify  it  to  as  many  as  they 
could  possibly  reach  before  the  time  com- 
manded for  the  observance  of  the  feast  was 
expired. 

"  But  then,  they  that  lived  in  places  far 
distant  from  Jerusalem,  whither  timely  notice 
could  not  be  conveyed,  were  obliged  to  keep 
the  feasts  a  day  more  than  otherwise  was  to  be 
kept,  on  account  of  not  being  certain  whether 


214     THE   DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

the  new  moon  was  consecrated  on  the  30th, 
or  not  observed  till  the  31st,  which  was  the 
reason  of  their  keeping  the  Passover  eight 
days,  the  feast  of  Pentecost  two  days,  and 
that  of  Tabernacles  nine  days ;  whereas,  in 
Scripture  we  are  commanded  to  keep  the 
Passover  seven,  the  feast  of  Pentecost  one, 
and  that  of  Tabernacles  eight,  days.  And 
notwithstanding  there  is  at  present  a  certain 
calculation,  yet  we  that  live  out  of  Jerusalem 
still  retain  the  former  practice." 

The  same  account  is  given  in  Abendana's 
"  Polity  of  the  Jews,"  pp.  173-176.  Also  by 
David  Levy,  who  has  copied  the  above  cited 
and  other  paragraphs  from  Abendana,  with 
little  alteration  and  no  acknowledgment 
("  Rites  and  Ceremonies"  pp.  23-30). 

The  same  account  may  be  found  more  at 
large  in  "  Maimon  de  Consecrat.  Calend.  a  de 
Veil,"  cap.  i.,  ii.,  iii.  (see  also  Leo  Mordena^ 
"  Rites  and  Customs" p.  iii.  chap,  ii.  sect.  2). 

The  following,  also,  confirming  the  above,  is 
taken  from  the  "  Restoration  of  Paths  to 
Dwell  in,"  by  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Street,  B.A., 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     215 

published  in  London,  Eng.,  in  1872,  p.  370. 
"  By  the  civil  reckoning,  the  moon  was  ac- 
counted new,  fourteen  days  after  full-moon 
day ;  but,  in  the  temple  reckoning,  the  moon 
could  not  be  proclaimed  new,  until  it  had 
actually  been  seen  eastward  of  the  sun.  Con- 
sequently, the  canonical  fourteenth  day  of  the 
moon,  the  Passover  day,  would  sometimes  be 
the  fifteenth  day  of  the  civil  calendar  month  " 
(i.e.,  the  day  that  was  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
month  according  to  the  true  appearance  of  the 
moon),  "the  moon  not  having  been  seen  on 
the  very  day  of  conjunction  with  the  sun ; 
and  this  would  happen  when  the  conjunction 
took  place  at  sunset,  for  then  the  moon 
would  not  be  perceptible  till  the  second  day. 
Hence  our  Lord  could  eat  the  Passover  feast 
with  His  disciples  lawfully  on  the  fourteenth 
day,  and  could  himself  be  the  paschal  lamb  of 
sacrifice  slain  on  the  next  day,  expiring  at  the 
ninth  hour,  between  the  two  evenings,  at  the 
time  when  the  paschal  sacrifice  was  being 
celebrated  in  the  temple." 

Adopting  this  view,  which,  it  will  be  seen, 


216     THE   DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

comes  to  us  on  high  authority,  and  is  thus 
shown  to  be  the  correct  one,  we  can  readily 
perceive,  that  the  account  given  by  John  har- 
monizes with  that  of  the  other  evangelists. 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  following  the  true 
appearance  of  the  moon,  as  did  the  Saviour 
and  His  disciples,  speak  of  the  day  before  the 
Saviour's  crucifixion,  the  time  of  sending  Peter 
and  John  to  prepare  for  Him  the  Passover,  as 
being  "  the  first  day  of  the  feast,"  and  "  the 
day  when  the  Passover  should  be  killed." 
While  John,  speaking  in  accordance  with  the 
reckoning  of  the  Sanhedrim,  which  had  been 
adopted  by  the  Jewish  nation,  calls  the  day  on 
which  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  "  the  day  of 
the  preparation  of  the  Passover ;  "  that  is,  the 
day  on  which  they  put  the  leaven  out  of  their 
houses,  and  on  which  the  Passover  was  killed : 
that,  as  we  have  seen,  being  the  day  that  year 
which  the  Jews  actually  thus  observed. 

This  also  accounts  for  John's  speaking  of 
the  time  when  our  Saviour  was  eating  the 
Passover  with  His  disciples  as  being  "  before 
the  feast  of  the  Passover "  {John  xiii.  1),  be- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     217 

cause  it  was  before  the  time  appointed  that 
year  by  the  Sanhedrim,  when  the  Jews  ob- 
served it. 

It  serves  also,  to  explain  his  assertion,  that, 
on  the  day  on  which  our  Saviour  was  crucified, 
the  Jews  would  not  go  into  the  judgment  hall, 
"lest  they  should  be  defiled;  but  that  they 
might  eat  the  Passover  "  {John  xviii.  28). 

Further,  our  Saviour's  observing  the  Pass- 
over with  His  disciples  on  Wednesday  evening, 
the  beginning  of  the  15th  of  Nisan,  according 
to  the  true  appearance  of  the  moon,  not  only 
allows  of  His  strict  compliance  with  the  Law, 
but  also  fulfils  the  requirement  in  regard  to 
the  Passover  sacrifice.  The  paschal  lamb  was 
a  type  of  Christ.  It  pointed  to  Him  as  our 
Passover.  That  lamb,  as  has  been  shown,  was 
to  be  sacrificed  "  between  the  evenings  ;  "  that 
is,  between  three  and  five  o'clock  on  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Nisan  (Exod.  xii. 
6;  Lev.  xxiii.  5;  Num.  ix.  3,  5).  As  the 
paschal  lamb,  the  type  of  Christ,  was  crucified 
on  the  14th  of  the  month  Nisan,  between 
three   and  five   o'clock:   so  Christ,  the  great 


218     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

Antitype,  gave  up  His  life  at  that  time,  which, 
as  we  have  shown,  was  between  three  and  five 
o'clock  on  Thursday  afternoon,  the  day  which 
was  observed  by  the  Jews  that  year  as  the 
14th  of  Nisan,  and  hence  regarded  by  them 
as  the  proper  time  for  killing  the  paschal 
lamb.  As  confirmatory  of  this,  we  learn  that 
our  Saviour's  death  did  not  take  place  until 
after  the  ninth  hour,  or  three  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  {Matt,  xxvii.  46-50 ;  Mark  xv.  34- 
37).  As  the  hour  coincides  with  the  require- 
ment, so  also  does  the  day.  (See  argument  in 
proof  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  on  Thursday ', 
the  I4:th  of  the  month  Nisan,  chap.  Hi.) 

The  objection,  that,  according  to  the  true 
appearance  of  the  moon,  it  was  not  the  day 
for  killing  the  Passover,  is  without  force  ;  for, 
as  has  been  shown,  it  was  the  day  which  the 
Jews,  that  year,  by  the  appointment  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  observed  as  the  14th  of  the  month 
Nisan:  and  it  was  necessary  that  He  should 
be  crucified  on  that  day,  the  day  recognized  by 
the  Jews,  in  order  to  convince  them,  that,  as 
the  great  Antitype  of  the  Passover,  the  Law 
with  respect  to  Him  had  been  fulfilled. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     219 

Again,  it  was  necessary  that  He  should  eat 
the  Passover  with  His  disciples  before  His 
death,  that  He  might  institute  in  place  of  it, 
the  Lord's  Supper;  and  yet,  as  a  Jew  made 
under  the  Law,  it  does  not  seem  proper  for 
Him  to  have  violated  the  divine  command  by 
observing  it  before  the  appointed  time. 

One  necessity  appears  to  have  been  antago- 
nistic to  the  other,  and  yet  (upon  the  explana- 
tion that  our  Saviour  observed  the  Passover 
on  the  15th  of  the  month  Nisan,  according  to 
the  true  appearance  of  the  moon  ;  and  that 
the  Jews,  according  to  the  appointment  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  observed  it  on  the  day  following, 
as  shown  by  Dr.  Cudworth,  Dean  Prideaux, 
Mr.  Street,  and  others)  they  are  both  ac- 
complished ;  and  it  would  seem  as  if  Jehovah, 
that  year,  had  instituted  that  particular  ar- 
rangement to  obviate  this  difficulty. 

We  see,  also,  why  there  should  be  an  appar- 
ent discrepancy  between  John  and  the  other 
evangelists,  or  why  they  should  speak  of  the 
time  of  our  Saviour's  eating  the  Passover  with 
His  disciples,  according  to  the  true  appearance 


220     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION. 

of  the  moon,  while  John  speaks  of  it  accord- 
ing to  the  then  popular  acceptation.  The 
reason  is  furnished  in  the  authors'  design  in 
writing  their  Gospels.  Matthew's  design  was 
to  write  a  genuine  and  authentic  history  of 
the  Saviour's  life.  Mark's  design  was  the 
same  ;  but,  from  internal  evidence,  he  appears 
to  have  written  principally  for  the  Gentiles. 
Luke  also  wrote  his  Gospel  apparently  for  the 
Gentiles,  and,  as  supplementary  to  the  other 
two,  to  supply  parts  and  circumstances  omitted 
in  the  others :  as  he  has  himself  expressed  it, 
"  To  set  forth  in  order  from  the  beginning  a 
declaration  of  those  things  believed  among 
us  "  {Luke  i.  1-14) ;  that  is,  to  deliver  a  true 
and  genuine  account  of  the  life,  doctrines, 
miracles,  death,  and  resurrection  of  our  Sav- 
iour. This  being  the  design  of  the  first  three 
evangelists,  it  would  be  natural  for  them  to 
use  language  inferring  that  the  time  of  our 
Saviour's  eating  the  Passover  with  His  disciples 
was  the  time  appointed  for  it,  the  time  accord- 
ing to  the  true  appearance  of  the  moon ;  for 
so  our  Saviour  and  His  disciples  regarded  it. 


THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     221 

But  John  was  writing  for  Jews  ;  and  his  design 
was,  not  merely  to  give  an  authentic  account 
of  the  life  of  Christ  (that  had  been  done 
already),  but,  as  he  tells  us,  "  That  they  might 
believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  that 
believing  they  might  have  life  through  His 
name"  (John  xx.  31).  And  nothing  would 
tend  more  to  induce  the  Jews  to  "  believe 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,"  than  to  convince 
them,  that,  as  the  great  Antitype  of  the  Pass- 
over, He  had  died  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  the 
day  when  the  paschal  lamb  was  killed;  and 
hence  we  can  see  the  reason  why  he  should 
speak  of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  as  having 
occurred  on  "  the  day  of  preparation  for  the 
Passover,"  Thursday  in  that  year  having  been 
observed  by  the  Jews  as  the  day  of  prepara- 
tion, according  to  the  decree  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim. If  John  had  spoken  of  our  Saviour's 
death  as  taking  place  according  to  the  true 
appearance  of  the  moon,  and  not  according  to 
the  decree  of  the  Sanhedrim,  it  would  have 
made  His  death  to  have  occurred  on  the  loth, 
which  would  not  have  been  according  to  His 
purpose. 


222     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

Bishop  Bloomfield,  speaking  of  the  differ- 
ence between  John  and  the  other  evangelists, 
says,  "  The  real  difference  between  them  is, 
that  they  wrote  a  history  of  our  Saviour's  life, 
but  St.  John,  of  His  person  and  office."  We 
repeat,  therefore,  John's  design  was  to  prove 
to  the  Jews  that  "  Jesus  was  the  Christ ;  "  and, 
to  do  this,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should 
be  made  to  see  that  Jesus  was  Himself  their 
Passover :  and  hence  he  represents  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Christ  as  taking  place  on  the  day 
observed  by  them  that  year  as  the  day  of 
preparation,  that  being  the  time  when  the 
Passover  should  be  killed.  This  would  be  to 
the  Jews  a  remarkable  circumstance  in  proof 
that  He  was  the  Messiah  ;  the  fact,  that,  as  the 
great  Antitype  of  the  Passover,  He  was  slain 
at  the  appointed  time.  This  would  seem  also 
to  account  for  John's  saying,  on  a  previous 
occasion,  "  No  man  laid  hands  on  Him,  for 
His  hour  was  not  yet  come  "  ( John  viii.  20). 

We  now  pass  to  notice  other  objections. 
Both  John  and  the  other  evangelists  speak  of 
the  day  on  which  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  as 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     223 

being  the  preparation  for  the  Sabbath :  "  And 
now  when  the  even  was  come,  because  it  was 
the  preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the 
Sabbath"  [Mark  xv.  42).  "  And  that  day  was 
the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew  on" 
[Luke  xxiii.  54).  "  The  Jews,  therefore, 
because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  the  bodies 
should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  (for  that  Sabbath  day  was  an  high 
day),  besought  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be 
broken,  and  that  they  might  be  taken  away  " 
[John  xix.  31).  Now,  it  may  be  said  that  our 
Saviour  cannot  have  been  crucified  on  Thurs- 
day, because  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  not  until 
Saturday ;  and  hence,  Thursday  cannot  have 
been  the  day  before  it,  nor  the  day  of  prepara- 
tion for  it. 

We  answer,  while  John  speaks  of  it  as 
being  the  preparation  for  the  Sabbath,  he  also 
speaks  of  it  as  "  the  preparation  of  the  Pass- 
over "  (John  xix.  14) ;  and  the  term  "  Pass- 
over "  here  must  apply  to  the  Passover  supper, 
and  not  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  that  occurred 
during   the   Passover   festival.     When    John 


224     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

speaks  of  the  same  day  as  being  "  the  prepa- 
ration of  the  Passover,"  and  "  the  preparation 
for  the  Sabbath,"  we  are  not  to  understand 
that  he  contradicts  himself.  The  whole  diffi- 
culty appears  to  lie  in  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  term  Sabbath.  It  has  been  thought  to 
signify  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday ;  and 
hence  Friday  has  naturally  been  regarded  as 
the  day  of  preparation.  The  Sabbath  re- 
ferred to,  however,  was  not  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, but  "  the  day  of  holy  convocation,"  "  the 
day  of  unleavened  bread."  The  first  day  of 
the  feast  was  to  be  a  "  day  of  holy  convoca- 
tion." They  were  to  "do  no  servile  work 
therein "  (Lev.  xxiii.  7).  That  this  was  the 
15th  of  Nisan,  the  "  day  of  unleavened 
bread,"  is  evident,  by  taking  it  in  connection 
with  the  preceding  verse.  "  On  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  same  month  is  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread  unto  the  Lord :  seven  days 
ye  must  eat  unleavened  bread.  In  the  first 
day  ye  shall  have  a  holy  convocation."  Not 
the  first  day  of  the  Passover,  for  that  was  the 
1 4th,  but  the  first  day  of  the  seven  days,  the 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     225 

15th,  "  the  day  of  unleavened  bread,"  or,  ac- 
cording to  the  passage  just  quoted,  the  day  on 
which  was  "  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread." 
That  this  day  was  regarded  as  a  Sabbath  is 
evident   from   the   thhrty-ninth   verse   of  the 
same  chapter,  where,  in  speaking  of  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  it  is  said,  "  On  the  first  day 
shall  be  a  Sabbath,  and  on  the  eighth"  (the 
last  day)  "  shall  be  a  Sabbath ; "  that  is,  "  days 
of  holy  convocation,"  as  was  the  "  day  of  un- 
leavened  bread."     It   is  clear  that  the   Sab- 
baths here  mentioned  were  not  the   Jewish 
Sabbath ;  for  the  Jews  reckoned  their  time  by 
lunar  months,  which  were  determined  by  the 
moons  appearance:    and  therefore   the   first 
and  eighth  days  did  not  always  occur  on  the 
same  day  of  the  week ;  and  hence  the  first  and 
last  days  of  the  feast,  called  Sabbaths,  could 
only  at  rare  intervals  fall  on  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, or  Saturday. 

Moreover,  John  explains  it,  when  he  says, 
xix.  31,  "  For  that  Sabbath  was  a  ;  high  day ' ' 
(^  a  great  day).     He  uses  the  same  term, 
W«ty,  in  speaking  of  the  last  day  of  the  feast 


226     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^   CRUCIFIXION. 

of  Tabernacles  (to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  and  which  we  have  shown  could  not 
have  been  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday,  as 
it  was  liable  to  fall  on  any  day  of  the  week)  ; 
though  in  itself  it  was  not  more  sacred  than 
the  first  day,  and  in  Lev.  xxiii.  39  is  called, 
with  the  first  day,  a  Sabbath. 

Thus  he  says,  "  In  the  last  day,  that  '  great 
day'  of  the  feast"  (John  vii.  37).  So  the 
calling  of  assemblies  (Isa.  i.  13)  is  translated 
"  a  great  day"  by  the  Seventy,  implying  that, 
in  their  estimation,  any  day  of  solemn  convo- 
cation was  a  great  day  (see  Robinson's  "  Eng- 
lish Harmony  of  the  Gospels"  pp.  203,  204). 
For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  part  of  the 
subject,  the  reader  is  referred  to  chap.  ii.  pp. 
38-45. 

Thursday,  therefore,  the  day  on  which  our 
Saviour  was  crucified,  was  the  day  of  prepa- 
ration, not  only  of  the  Passover,  but  also  of 
the  Sabbath,  "  the  day  of  holy  convocation." 
So  that  both  John's  assertions  completely  har- 
monize, and  are  seen  also  to  be  in  accordance, 
with  the  assertions  of  the  other  evangelists. 


THE  DAY   OF  OUR   SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     227 

It  will  be  seen  from  this,  that,  on  the  false 
theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Fri- 
day, John  is  not  only  made  to  contradict  the 
other  evangelists,  but  he  is  made  to  contradict 
himself;  for  he  says,  as  distinctly,  that  the  day 
on  which  Christ  was  crucified  was  "  the  day 
of  preparation  of  the  Passover"  [John  xix. 
14),  as,  that  it  was  "  the  day  of  preparation 
for  the  Sabbath"  {John  xix.  31):  and  as  Fri- 
day was  the  15th  of  Nisan,  the  day  on  which 
the  paschal  lamb  was  eaten,  it  was  the  day  of 
the  Passover,  and  cannot  have  been  "  the  day 
of  preparation  "  for  it. 

Another  seeming  objection  to  our  Saviour's 
having  been  crucified  on  Thursday  is  found 
in  the  following  passages.  After  the  women 
had  beheld  His  sepulchre  and  how  His  body 
was  laid,  they  "  returned,  and  prepared  spices 
and  ointments,  and  rested  the  Sabbath  day 
according  to  the  commandment "  (L/uke  xxiii. 
56).  "  And  when  the  Sabbath  was  past, 
Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the  mother  of 
James,  and  Salome,  had  brought  sweet  spices, 
that  they  might  come  and  anoint  Him  "  (Mark 


228     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

ocvi.  1).  Now,  we  know  that  they  came  for 
this  purpose  "  very  early  in  the  morning  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week "  [Mark  xvi.  2). 
Our  Saviour,  as  we  have  seen,  having  been 
crucified  on  Thursday,  must  have  lain  in  the 
grave  Friday  and  Saturday,  two  days,  where- 
as it  seems  to  be  implied  in  these  passages, 
that  He  lay  in  the  grave  only  over  the  Sab- 
bath. How  shall  we  consistently  explain  it? 
We  answer,  Friday  the  15th,  as  we  have 
shown,  was  a  "  Sabbath,"  "  a  day  of  holy  con- 
vocation," and  not  only  a  Sabbath,  but  the 
"  great  "  or  "  high  "  Sabbath  of  the  festival: 
and  Saturday,  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
was  the  ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath ;  and  hence, 
both  being  Sabbaths,  the  time  throughout  was 
as  one  continued  Sabbath:  and  in  the  expres- 
sions referred  to  they  seem  to  have  been 
spoken  of  as  one.  But  Matthew  has  removed 
the  difficulty.  "  In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath," 
or,  more  correctly,  "  after  the  Sabbath,  as  it 
began  to  dawn  towards  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other 
Mary  to  see  the  sepulchre  "  {Matt,  xxviii.  1). 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^   CRUCIFIXION.     229 

"  In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath."  The  transla- 
tion here  is  in  the  singular  number,  but  the 
original  is  in  the  plural :  'Oips  de  ZupfatQv,  "  the 
end  of  the  Sabbaths,"  which,  certainly,  is  con- 
sistent with  the  idea,  that,  between  our  Sav- 
iour's crucifixion  and  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  there  were  two  Sabbaths. 

We  know  it  has  been  claimed  that  the 
translation  is  correct,  that,  in  the  original,  the 
plural  is  here  used  for  the  singular.  This  is 
merely  an  assumption,  suggested  in  the  at- 
tempt to  relieve  the  text  of  an  apparent  diffi- 
culty, and  is  manifestly  incorrect.  Evidently 
it  would  never  have  been  thought  of,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  belief  which  was  held  by  the 
translators,  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on 
Friday,  and,  therefore,  that  He  could  have  lain 
in  the  grave  only  over  one  Sabbath.  We 
admit  that  there  are  certain  instances  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  the  circumstances 
recorded,  are  such  as  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  Dative  plural  Zdffiaat  is  used  for  the 
singular  (Matt.  xii.  1  ;  Mark  i.  21  :  ii.  23, 
24:  Hi.  2;  Luke  xiii.   10),  but  these  are  ex- 


230     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

ceptional;  for,  in  most  instances  where  the 
Dative  plural  is  found  in  the  original,  the 
translation  is  in  the  plural.  But  there  is  no 
exception  in  the  case  of  the  Genitive  plural 
2appazcov.  It  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 
only  in  four  instances  [Matt,  xxviii.  1 ;  Luke 
iv.  16;  Acts  xiii.  14:  xvi.  13),  except  when  it 
is  used  after  numerals,  as  in  Matt,  xxviii.  1  ; 
Mark  xvi.  2  ;  Luke  xviii.  12  ;  xxiv.  1 ;  John 
xx.  1-19 ;  Acts  xx.  7 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  when  it 
marks  the  days  of  the  week ;  and,  in  every 
instance,  it  admits  of  a  plural  signification. 
As  to  the  four  instances  above  mentioned, 
the  passage  in  Matt,  xxviii.  1  we  have  al- 
ready explained.  In  the  other  passages  in 
which  the  Genitive  plural  Xa^axm  occurs,  the 
phrase  is  rr\  w?pa  ro3v  Zcfftpaxoov,  "  the  day  of  the 
Sabbaths,"  meaning  a  definite  or  particular 
day,  equivalent  to  "  one  of  the  Sabbaths." 
The  article  rij  determines  this,  having  the  force 
of  our  definite  article.  O  was  originally  a 
demonstrative  pronoun ;  but  as  the  prepositive 
article,  having  the  demonstrative  power  gradu- 
ally softened  down,  it  simply  marks  an  object 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     231 

as  definite  (see  Robinsons  "New  Testament 
Greek  Lexicon"  also  Liddell  and  Scott's  "  Greek- 
English  Lexicon  ").  The  phrase  'Oye  Si  Za^axwv, 
in  Matt,  xxviii.  1,  therefore,  means  exactly 
what  it  says,  "the  end  of  the  Sabbaths,"  show- 
ing that  a  plurality  of  Sabbaths  preceded  it 
(see  argument  on  this  phrase,  '0\f>e  de  Zappdnov, 
chap.  ii.  pp.  38-45). 

But  we  are  not  strenuous  on  this  point. 
Whether  our  position  be  accepted  or  not,  does 
not  affect  the  argument.  If  it  could  be 
proved  that  the  Genitive  plural  Zappdrwv  was 
sometimes  used  for  the  singular,  such  a  use 
would  be  clearly  exceptional.  No  one  will 
deny  that  the  Genitive  plural  has  a  plural 
signification ;  and  therefore,  if  at  any  time  it 
were  to  be  translated  in  the  singular,  there 
would  have  to  be  an  absolute  necessity  to 
warrant  it.  But  it  cannot  fail  to  be  seen  that 
no  such  necessity  exists  in  this  instance.  We 
have  shown  beyond  question,  that  Friday,  in 
the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified,  was 
the  loth  of  Nisan,  the  "great"  or  "high" 
Sabbath  of  the  festival,  and  Saturday  the  16th 


232     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

was  the  ordinary  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  hence, 
that  two  Sabbaths  preceded  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  follows 
inevitably,  that  Matthew  uses  the  plural 
Za^dtwv  intelligently,  and  that  it  has  a  plural 
signification. 

We  have  now  shown  {chap,  ii.)  that  Friday, 
in  the  year  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified, 
was  observed  by  the  Jews  as  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  month  Nisan ;  and  [chap.  Hi.)  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  on  the  14th,  and  there- 
fore, as  Friday  was  the  15th,  that  He  must 
have  been  crucified  on  the  preceding  day, 
which  was  Thursday.  We  have  also  shown 
[chap.  w.),  that,  having  been  crucified  on 
Thursday,  He  lay  in  the  grave  Thursday 
night,  Friday  night,  and  Saturday  night,  three 
nights,  and  all  day  Friday  and  Saturday,  and  a 
part  of  Sunday,  and  rose  literally  on  the  third 
day,  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  [chap, 
v.)  that  His  crucifixion  on  Thursday  accounts 
for  Matthew's  use  of  the  plural  Zappdzmv ; 
[chap,  vi.),  that  it  explains  the  "  six  days  "  and 
the  "  two  days  before  the  Passover  "  consist- 


THE  DAY  OF   OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     233 

ently  with  the  general  belief  of  the  church 
and  the  generally  expressed  opinion  of  com- 
mentators in  regard  to  them ;  (chap,  vii.),  that 
it  makes  His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  to 
have  been  on  Sunday,  called  "  Palm  Sunday," 
according  to  the  general  belief  of  the  church ; 
(chap,  viii.),  that  it  accounts  for  the  occupation 
of  the  several  days  of  Passion  Week,  and 
removes  the  concealment  which,  on  the  false 
theory  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Fri- 
day, necessarily  hangs  over  Wednesday ;  and 
finally  (chap.  ix.)>  that  His  crucifixion  on 
Thursday  not  only  reconciles  the  apparent 
discrepancy  between  John  and  the  other  evan- 
gelists, but  reconciles  him  with  himself,  remov- 
ing an  otherwise  palpable  contradiction,  in 
short,  removes  every  difficulty.  These  conclu- 
sions are  based  on  the  fact  that  He  was  cruci- 
fied A.D.  30,  according  to  the  general  belief. 
That  He  was  crucified  in  that  year  is  shown 
in  the  next  chapter. 


STATEMENT. 
Our  Saviour  was  crucified  A.D.  30. 


THE  YEAR  OP  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

That  He  was  crucified  A.D.  30  is  evident. 

1.  It  is  the  general  opinion.  That  which 
is  established  by  common  consent  is  presumed 
to  be  correct  until  it  is  proved  to  the  contrary. 

2.  It  incidentally  confirms  the  argument  in 
regard  to  Thursday  as  having  been  the  day 
of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion,  so  essential  in 
reconciling  the  Scripture  narrative. 

3.  There  is  strong  circumstantial  evidence 
in  its  favor. 

4.  The  most  critical  commentators  confirm 
it. 

That  it  is  the  general  opinion  that  our 
Saviour  was  crucified  A.D.  30  cannot  be 
denied. 

That  it  incidentally  confirms  the  argument 
in  regard  to  Thursday  as  having  been  the  day 
of  our  Saviour's   crucifixion,  so    essential   in 

237 


238     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

reconciling  the  Scripture  narrative,  must  be 
evident  to  those  who  have  followed  our  argu- 
ment. 

That  there  is  strong  circumstantial  evidence 
in  its  favor,  will  be  seen  from  the  following :  — 

1.  Our  Saviour  was  crucified  when  Pontius 
Pilate  was  governor ;  and  it  is  known  that  he 
was  governor  ten  years,  from  A.D.  25  to  A.D. 
35.  Luke  informs  us  (in.  1-3),  that,  when 
John  the  Baptist  began  his  ministry,  Pontius 
Pilate  was  governor.  Now,  as  Pilate  was 
governor  when  John  began  his  ministry,  and 
did  not  become  governor  until  A.D.  25,  and 
we  must  allow  at  least  four  years  for  the 
preaching  of  John  and  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
the  Saviour  cannot  have  been  crucified  before 
A.D.  29.  Therefore  His  crucifixion  must 
have  taken  place  between  A.D.  29  and  A.D. 
35,  for  after  that  Pilate  was  not  governor. 

But  A.D.  30  is  the  only  year,  as  we  have 
seen,  between  these  dates,  in  which  Roger 
Bacon,  Mann,  and  Scaliger,  Dodwell,  and 
Ferguson,  who  have  given  their  attention  to  a 
critical  investigation  of  the  subject,  agree  that 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     239 

the  Passover  full  moon,  which  determined  the 
14th  of  the  month  Nisan,  fell  on  the  same 
day  of  the  week ;  and  that  day  they  decide  to 
have  been  Wednesday,  which,  as  we  have 
shown,  answers  fully  all  the  conditions  of  the 
Scripture  narrative,  providing  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  on  Thursday. 

We  are  aware  that  Sir  Isaac  Newton  and 
some  others  have  thought  that  our  Saviour 
was  crucified  A.D.  33.  But  against  this  there 
lies  the  insuperable  objection,  that,  if  He  had 
lived  until  A.D.  33,  He  would  have  been 
thirty-six  years  old ;  and  it  would  have  given 
six  years  and  a  half  as  the  time  of  His  public 
ministry.  He  came  to  John  to  be  baptized 
when  He  was  about  thirty  years  of  age  [Lake 
Hi.  23),  which  was  the  beginning  of  His 
public  ministry.  As  the  great  High  Priest, 
He  then  entered  upon  His  priestly  office. 
And  this  accords  with  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
that  the  priests  should  minister  in  their  office 
from  thirty  years  old  and  upward  (Num.  iv.  3). 
(Though  David  afterwards  changed  the  time 
of  the  Levites  entering  upon  their  Levitical 


240     THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

office  from  twenty-five  to  twenty  years  of  age 
(1  Chron.  xxiii.  24),  he  does  not  appear  to 
have  made  any  change  in  regard  to  the  priests.) 
The  baptism  of  Jesus,  by  John,  was  His 
consecration  to  His  priestly  office.  This  is 
beyond  question.  In  no  other  sense  could  He 
have  been  baptized.  Johns  baptism  was  a 
baptism  of  repentance ;  but  our  Saviour  was 
sinless,  consequently  He  had  nothing  to  repent 
of.  Christian  baptism  is  a  sign  and  seal  of 
inward  and  spiritual  cleansing,  of  regeneration 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  Christian  baptism 
was  not  then  instituted  :  and  further,  our 
Saviour,  being  sinless,  had  received  no  spir- 
itual cleansing;  and  hence  in  this  sense  the 
rite,  as  administered  to  Him  by  John,  can 
have  had  no  significance.  And  if  it  be  said 
that  He  was  baptized  as  an  example  for  us,  we 
answer,  His  baptism  is  no  more  an  example 
for  us  than  His  crucifixion.  He  was  baptized 
[Matt.  Hi.  15)  "  to  fulfil  all  righteousness ; " 
that  is,  the  righteousness  of  the  Jewish  Law, 
which  required  that  the  priests  should  be 
consecrated,  or  set  apart  to  their  sacred  office 


THE  DAY   OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     241 

by  washing  them  with  water;  that  is,  baptizing 
them  (Exod.  xxix.  4 ;  xl.  12 ;  Lev.  viii.  6). 
And,  after  they  were  baptized,  they  were  to  be 
anointed  (Exod.  xl.  13)  with  the  "  anointing 
oil "  (Exod.  xl.  9).  And  so  Jesus,  when  He 
was  about  to  enter  upon  His  public  ministry 
as  our  great  High  Priest  (Heb.  iv.  14),  being 
of  suitable  age,  came  to  John  to  be  conse- 
crated, or  set  apart  by  him  to  that  office  by 
the  act  of  baptism,  that  He  might  thus  "  ful- 
fil all  righteousness."  But,  as  He  was  to  be 
a  high  priest  not  after  the  order  of  men,  it 
was  necessary  that  He  should  receive  a  higher 
unction;  and,  accordingly,  after  His  baptism, 
the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  Him  in  the 
form  of  a  dove,  and  the  voice  of  the  Father 
was  distinctly  heard  (Matt.  Hi.  16,  17):  and, 
consequently,  we  find  Him  spoken  of,  as 
anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  x.  38. 
See  also  Acts  iv.  27,  and  Luke  iv.  18).  In  the 
last  passage,  it  will  be  noticed  that  our  Saviour 
Himself  says,  referring  evidently  to  His 
anointing  after  His  baptism,  "  The  Spirit  of 
the    Lord    is    upon    me,   because   He    hath 


242     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

anointed  me  to  preach  the  Gospel."  His 
anointing,  therefore,  to  preach  the  Gospel 
was  His  anointing  to  His  public  ministry.  The 
time  of  His  baptism  by  John,  then,  fixes  clearly 
the  time  of  His  entering  upon  His  public 
ministry.  It  is  well  known  that  our  Saviour 
attended  but  three  Passovers,  at  least  there  is 
no  mention  of  more  than  three ;  and  we  have 
no  reason  to  infer  from  the  Scripture  narrative 
that  there  were  others :  and  hence  He  could 
have  been  but  three  years  and  a  half  in  His 
public  ministry.  It  is  also  known  that  the 
Christian  era,  fixed  by  Dionysius  Exiguus  in 
the  sixth  century,  does  not  in  reality  date 
from  the  birth  of  Christ,  but  some  years  later. 
The  general  opinion  is,  that  it  is  about  four 
years ;  and  this  is  correct :  but  some  think  it 
two  years,  and  others,  five.  If,  now,  we  take 
the  least  estimated  difference  in  the  date,  two 
years,  on  the  theory  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  and 
others,  that  our  Lord  was  crucified  A.D.  33, 
He  would  have  been  thirty-four  and  a  half 
years  of  age,  and  His  ministry  must  have 
continued  four  and  a  half  years.     And,  if  we 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.     243 

assume  that  He  was  crucified  A.D.  33,  accord- 
ing to  the  correct  date,  which  allows  a  differ- 
ence of  four  years,  He  would  have  been 
thirty-six  and  a  half  years  old  at  the  time 
of  His  death,  and  His  ministry  would  have 
continued  six  and  a  half  years.  Such  a 
theory  as  this,  is  not  tenable.  We  see,  there- 
fore, that  He  cannot  have  been  crucified  in 
A.D.  33. 

2.  According  to  Dan.  ix.  24,  25,  seventy 
weeks  were  determined.  From  the  going 
forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to 
build  Jerusalem,  unto  Messiah  the  Prince, 
should  be  seven  weeks,  and  threescore  and  two 
weeks."  And  [Dan.  ix.  27)  in  the  midst  of 
the  week  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  should 
cease.  The  sacrifice  ceased  under  the  Law, 
when  Christ,  the  great  sacrifice,  was  offered. 
Seven  weeks,  and  threescore  and  two  weeks, 
are  sixty-nine  weeks,  or  four  hundred  and 
eighty-three  days,  which  (a  day  in  prophecy 
denoting  a  year)  is  four  hundred  and  eighty- 
three  years,  which,  according  to  Daniel,  was  to 
be  the  time  from  the    "  going   forth   of  the 


244     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

commandment  to  restore  and  to  build  Jeru- 
salem," to  the  manifestation  of  Christ  to 
Israel,  or  unto  "  Messiah  the  Prince."  Ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrew  chronology,  the  com- 
mission of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  to  Ezra 
was  given  four  hundred  and  fifty-seven  years 
before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era. 
Canon  Baldwin  says,  "  The  time  of  the  going 
forth  is  admitted  by  all  to  have  been  B.C.  457." 
That  is  what  he  calls  the  "  terminus  aequus," 
or  starting-point  of  the  seventy  weeks.  Four 
hundred  and  fifty-seven  from  four  hundred  and 
eighty-three  leaves  twenty-six,  and  this  gives 
A.D.  26,  the  time  of  our  Lord's  "  manifestation 
to  Israel,"  or,  when  He  began  His  public  min- 
istry ;  and,  as  He  was  born  four  years  before 
the  commencement  of  our  era  (twenty-six  and 
four  being  thirty),  it  agrees  in  time  with  the 
Scripture  narrative,  that  "  He  began  to  be 
about  thirty  years  of  age  "  [Luke  in.  23). 

The  "  Encyclopaedia  of  Keligious  Knowl- 
edge" says  (p.  126),  "  Dr.  Prideaux,  who  dis- 
courses very  copiously  and  with  great  learning 
on  this  prophecy,  maintains    that  the  decree 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     245 

mentioned  in  it  for  the  restoring  and  rebuild- 
ing of  Jerusalem,  cannot  be  understood  of  that 
granted  to  Nehemiah  in  the  twentieth  year  of 
Artaxerxes,  but  of  that  granted  to  Ezra  by 
the  same  Artaxerxes  in  the  seventh  year  of 
his  reign." 

We  know  that  ancient  chronology  is  not 
always  reliable,  but,  in  this  instance,  the  evi- 
dence is  positive.  Artaxerxes  Longimanus 
was  the  son  of  Xerxes,  and  succeeded  him  in 
the  kingdom.  Xerxes  was  assassinated  465 
B.C.  Adding  to  this  the  seven  years  of  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  before  giving  the  commis- 
sion, and  we  have  458  B.C.,  a  difference  of 
only  one  year  from  the  time,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  chronology,  of  issuing  the  decree ; 
and  this  difference  is  easily  accounted  for. 
The  Jews  began  their  civil  year  in  the  autumn 
with  the  month  Tisri,  answering  to  the 
15th  of  our  September,  or,  according  to 
some  authorities,  to  Sept.  22,  and  not  in  the 
spring.  Hence,  if  Artaxerxes  began  his 
reign  after  the  autumnal  equinox,  it  would  be 
465  B.C.,  according  to  the  common  reckoning, 


246     THE   DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION. 

but  464  B.C.  after  the  manner  of  the  He- 
brews. And  this,  with  the  seven  years  of  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  before  issuing  the  decree 
(seven  from  464  being  457),  corresponds  ex- 
actly with  the  statement  according  to  the 
Hebrew  chronology,  that  it  was  the  year  457. 

"  The  sacrifice  was  to  cease  in  the  midst  of 
the  week ; "  that  is,  in  the  midst  of  the  seven- 
tieth week,  as  "  seventy  weeks  were  deter- 
mined." Seven  weeks  and  sixty- two  weeks, 
making  sixty-nine  weeks,  had  passed  before 
the  beginning  of  Christ's  public  ministry.  A 
week  in  prophecy  representing  seven  years, 
the  midst  of  it  would  be  three  years  a  half, 
which  was  the  time  of  Christ's  public  min- 
istry. Now,  as  He  was  crucified  on  the  14th 
of  Nisan,  answering  to  about  the  first  of  our 
April,  or  in  the  spring,  He  must  have  come 
to  John  to  be  baptized  in  the  autumn  of  A.D. 
26 ;  and  three  years  and  a  half  added  would 
bring  His  crucifixion  in  the  spring  of  A.D. 
30.  So  that  His  crucifixion  at  that  time  is 
seen  to  be  the  exact  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 

3.  Dr.  Robinson,  in  his  "Notes  to  his  Eng- 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     247 

lish  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,"  part  i.  sect.  7, 
p.  167,  says,  "According  to  Matt.  ii.  1-6,  Jesus 
was  born  during  the  life-time  of  Herod  the 
Great,  and  not  long  before  his  death.     Herod 
died  in  the  year  Rome  A.U.  750,  just  before 
the  Passover  (see  Josephus    "Antiquities"  book 
xmi.  chap.  viii.  sect.   1 ;  ib.  xvii.  ix.  3).     This 
has  been  verified  by  calculating  the  eclipse  of 
the    moon,  which   happened  just   before   his 
death    (Josephus s    "  Antiquities"   xvii.    vi.    4. 
Ideler,  "Handbook  of  Chronology"  ii.  p.  391, 
sq.).     If,  now,  we  make  an  allowance  of  time 
for  the  purification,  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  the 
flight  into  Egypt,  and  the  remaining  there  until 
the  death  of  Herod,  for  all  which,  not  less  than 
six  months  can  well  be  required,  it  follows, 
that  the  birth  of  Christ  cannot,  in  any  case, 
be  fixed  later  than  the  autumn  of  A.U.  749." 
If,  now,  we  accept  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Rob- 
inson, fixing  the  date  of  our  Saviour's  birth  in 
the  autumn  of  A.U.  749,  and  allow  the  three 
years  and  a  half,  the  time  of  His  public  min- 
istry, making  Him  at  the  time  of  His  death 
to  have  been  thirty-three  and  a  half  years  of 


248     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

age,  we  perceive  that  He  must  have  been 
crucified  in  the  spring  of  A.U.  783,  or  A.D. 
30. 

Again,  in  order  to  make  this  as  plain  as 
possible,  though  at  the  risk  of  some  repeti- 
tion, according  to  President  Woolsey  (see 
"  Bibliotheca  Sacra"  April,  1870,  p.  332), 
"  Herod  the  Great  died  the  beginning  of  750 
U.C. " 1  This  also,  as  we  have  seen  (Jose-, 
phui  "Antiquities"  xvii.  viii.  1,  and  xvii.  ix. 
3  ;  also  Josephus's  "  Wars"  ii.  i.  1—3),  was  just 
before  the  Passover :  and,  since  our  Saviour 
was  born  but  a  short  time  before  the  death  of 
Herod,  in  the  autumn  of  A.U.  749,  and  He 
"  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age " 
when  He  came  to  John  to  be  baptized,  thirty 
years  added  to  A.U.  749  brings  us  to  A.U. 
779  as  the  date  of  His  baptism;  and  three 
years  and  a  half,  the  time  of  His  public  min- 
istry, being  added  to  this,  brings  us  again  tc 


1  It  will  be  understood  that  the  letters  A.U.  and  U.C,  an- 
nexed to  the  dates  in  these  quotations,  are  the  different  ini- 
tials of  Anno  Urbis  Conditce,  and  signify  the  same  thing,  the 
year  as  reckoned  from  the  founding  of  Rome. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     249 

the  spring  of  A.U.  783,  or  A.D.  30,  as  the 
time  of  His  crucifixion. 

The  following,  also  on  the  year  of  our 
Saviour's  birth,  agreeing  substantially  with 
that  we  have  presented,  is  found  in  Smith's 
"  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  vol.  ii.  p.  1381. 
"It  is  certain  that  our  Lord  was  born  before 
the  death  of  Herod  the  Great.  Herod  died, 
according  to  Josephus  ('  Antiquities]  xvii. 
viii.  1),  having  reigned  thirty-four  years  from 
the  time  that  he  had  procured  Antigonus  to 
be  slain,  but  thirty-seven  from  the  time  that 
he  had  been  declared  king  by  the  Eomans 
(see  also  '  B.  J,'  *.  xxxiii.  sect,  8).  His  appoint- 
ment as  king,  according  to  the  same  writer 
('  Antiquities]  xiv.  xiv.  sect.  5),  coincides  with 
the  184th  Olympiad,  and  the  consulship  of  C. 
Domitius  Calvinus,  and  C.  Asinius  Pollio.  It 
appears  that  he  was  made  king  by  the  joint 
influence  of  Antony  and  Octavius  ;  and  the 
reconciliation  of  these  two  men  took  place  on 
the  death  of  Fulvia,  in  the  year  714. 

"  Again,  the  death  of  Antigonus  and  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem,  which  form  the  basis  of 


250     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION. 

calculation  for  the  thirty-four  years,  coincides 
(Josephus'  c  Antiquities,1  xix.  xvi.  sect.  4)  with 
the  consulship  of  M.  Vipsanius  Agrippa  and 
L.  Caninius  Gallus  ;  that  is,  with  the  year  of 
Rome  717,  and  occurred  in  the  month  Sivan 
=  June  or  July. 

"  From  these  facts  we  are  justified  in  pla- 
cing the  death  of  Herod  in  A.U.C.  750. 
Those,  who  place  it  one  year  later,  overlook 
the  mode  in  which  Josephus  reckons  Jewish 
reigns. 

"  Wieseler  shows  by  several  passages  that 
he  reckons  the  year  from  the  month  Nisan  to 
Nisan,  and  that  he  counts  the  fragment  of  a 
year  at  either  extreme,  as  one  complete  year. 

"  In  this  mode,  thirty-four  years  from  June 
or  July  717  would  apply  to  any  date  between 
the  1st  of  Nisan  750,  and  the  1st  of  Nisan 
751.  And  thirty-seven  years  from  714  would 
apply  likewise  to  any  date  within  the  same 
termini.  Wieseler  finds  facts  confirmatory  of 
this  in  the  dates  of  the  reign  of  Herod  An- 
tipas  and  Archelaus  (see  his  '  Chronologische 
SynopseJ  p.  55).      Between  these  two   dates 


THE  DAY   OF   OUR   SAVIOUR'S   CRUCIFIXION.      251 

Josephus  furnishes  means  for  a  more  exact 
determination.  Just  after  Herod's  death  the 
Passover  occurred  (Nisan  15th),  and  upon 
Herod's  death  Archelaus  caused  a  seven  days' 
mourning  to  be  kept  for  him  (c  Antiquities? 
xvii.  ix.  sect  3 ;  xvii.  viii.  sect.  4)  ;  so  that  it 
would  appear  that  Herod  died  somewhat  more 
than  seven  days  before  the  Passover,  in  750, 
and,  therefore,  in  the  first  few  days  of  the 
month  Nisan,  A.U.C.  750.  Now,  as  Jesus 
was  born  before  the  death  of  Herod,  it  follows 
that  the  Dionysian  era,  which  corresponds  to 
A.U.C.  754,  is  at  least  four  years  too  late." 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  argument  here 
given,  that  (as  Herod  died  in  the  spring  of 
A.U.  750,  and  our  Saviour  was  born  some 
time  before  his  death)  the  birth  of  our  Sav- 
our must  have  occurred  as  early  as  the  autumn 
of  A.U.  749 ;  which  brings  us  to  the  same 
starting-point,  and,  consequently,  to  the  same 
result. 

Thirty  years  added  to  749  brings  it  again 
to  779,  the  time  of  His  entering  on  His  pub- 
lic ministry ;  and  three  years  and  a  half,  the 


252     THE  DAY  OF  OUR   SAVIOURS   CRUCIFIXION. 

duration  of  His  public  ministry,  added  to  this, 
brings  us  to  the  spring  of  A.U.C.  783,  or  A.D. 
30,  the  time  of  our  Saviours  death. 

The  birth  of  our  Saviour  may  also  be  de- 
termined approximately  in  another  way. 

Luke  (Hi.  1,  2)  informs  us  that  John  the 
Baptist  entered  upon  his  public  ministry  in 
the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberias,  and  (Hi.  23) 
that  Jesus  was  "  about  thirty  years  of  age  "  at 
the  time  of  His  baptism  by  John. 

Now,  according  to  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
the  priest  was  to  enter  upon  his  office  when 
he  was  thirty  years  of  age  (Num.  iv.  3) ;  and, 
as  that  was  the  age  of  Jesus  when  He  entered 
upon  His  public  ministry,  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  John  also  commenced  his  min- 
istry at  that  age :  and  hence,  if  we  reckon 
back  thirty  years,  we  shall  ascertain  the  time 
of  John's  birth,  and,  consequently,  that  of  our 
Saviour,  who  is  known  to  have  been  six 
months  younger  (Luke  i.  26). 

Now,  the  Emperor  Augustus  died  Aug.  29, 
A.U.  767,  or  A.D.  14  (see  "American  Ency- 
clopaedia^ Smith's  "  Classical  Dictionary"  and 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^    CRUCIFIXION.     253 

all  standard  works  on  Roman  History) ;  and  that, 
as  Tiberias  succeeded  him  in  the  government, 
marks  the  date  of  his  accession  to  the  throne. 
Tiberias,  then,  having  succeeded  Augustus 
Aug.  29,  A.U.  767,  or  A.D.  14,  the  fifteenth 
year  of  his  reign  commenced  Aug.  29,  A.U. 
781,  or  A.D.  28;  and  going  back  thirty  years 
would  bring  the  birth  of  John  not  earlier 
than  Aug.  29,  A.U.  751,  or  2  B.C. 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  on  the  supposition, 
that  John  began  his  ministry  when  he  was 
exactly,  or  on  the  very  day  that  he  was,  thirty 
years  of  age.  But  the  Law  would  appear  to 
have  been  fulfilled  if  he  had  commenced  his 
ministry  at  any  time  within  a  few  months 
after  his  birthday,  or  even  before  he  was 
thirty-one.  That  the  time  required  was  not 
exact,  would  appear  from  what  is  said  of  our 
Saviour,  that  He  began  to  be,  not  thirty  years 
of  age,  but  "  about  thirty  years  of  age." 
Now,  if  John,  at  the  time  of  his  entering  on 
his  ministry,  had  been  a  few  months  past  his 
thirtieth  birthday,  he  would  still,  after  the 
ordinary     manner    of    speaking,    have    been 


254     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

thirty  years  of  age  (it  being  customary  to  call 
a  person  thirty  until  he  is  thirty-one) ;  and 
hence,  John  may  have  been  born  some 
months  earlier  in  the  year  A.U.  751,  or  2 
B.C.,  which,  our  Saviour  being  six  months 
younger,  would  bring  His  birth  in  the  autumn 
of  A.U.  751,  or  2  B.C.  But  we  have  ob- 
tained this  result  by  reckoning  the  fifteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberias  from  the  death 
of  Augustus,  and  his  accession  to  the  throne 
as  sole  ruler;  and,  ordinarily,  this  would  be 
the  proper  way. 

But  Augustus  associated  Tiberias  with  him 
in  the  government,  when  he  (Augustus)  was 
in  the  seventy-fourth  year  of  his  age  (see 
Goodrich's  "  History  of  All  Nations"  vol  ii. p. 
753,  and  works  on  Roman  History),  and  he 
died  in  the  seventy-sixth  year  of  his  age  (see 
"  American  Encyclopaedia"). 

Tiberias,  then,  was  associated  with  Augustus 
in  the  government  two  years  before  his  death. 
This,  then,  and  not  the  time  of  Augustus's 
death,  marks  really  the  commencement  of  his 
reign :  and  if  Luke  reckoned  from  this,  as  we 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOURS  CRUCIFIXION.     255 

believe  he  did,  the  date  of  John's  birth,  and 
consequently  that  of  our  Saviour,  would  be 
two  years  earlier;  that  is,  A.U.  749,  or  4  B.C., 
which  exactly  coincides  with  the  result  previ- 
ously obtained  by  reckoning  from  the  death  of 
Herod,  according  to  the  account  that  is  given 
us  by  Matthew.  And,  as  we  are  again 
brought  back  to  the  same  starting-point,  we 
have  thirty  added  to  A.U.  749,  making  A.U. 
779,  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  entering  on 
His  public  ministry;  and  three  years  and  a 
half,  the  length  of  His  ministry,  added  to  this, 
brings  us,  as  before,  to  the  spring  of  A.U.  783, 
or  A.D.  30. 

That  A.D.  30  corresponds,  or  is  synony- 
mous, with  A.U.  783,  is  seen  from  the  follow- 
ing : — 

The  system  of  counting  time  from  the  birth 
of  Christ,  introduced  by  Dionysius  Exiguus, 
and  adopted  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century,  was  to  supersede  the  method  of  com- 
puting by  Olympiads. 

There  were  four  years  to  each  Olympiad ; 
and  it  is  known  that  he  fixed  Christ's  birth  in 


256     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION. 

the  fourth  year  of  the  194th  Olympiad,  mak- 
ing a  mistake  of  one  such  period,  a  not  un- 
natural blunder  after  such  a  lapse  of  time, 
and  in  a  most  unscientific  and  uncritical  age. 

Though  some  think  him  to  have  made  a 
mistake  of  two  years,  and  others  five,  this, 
making  a  difference  of  four  years,  is  and  has 
been  the  general  opinion,  and  is,  moreover, 
confirmed  by  all  the  historical  facts  relating  to 
the  time  of  the  Saviours  life  and  crucifixion. 
Accordingly,  a  marginal  note  at  the  head  of 
the  second  chapter  of  Matthew  in  our  English 
New  Testament  (the  King  James  version) 
informs  us  that  Jesus  was  born  in  the  "  fourth 
year  before  the  common  account  called  Anno 
Domini." 

It  is  said,  also,  that,  when  the  error  was  dis- 
covered, so  many  events  were  on  record  in 
the  new  chronology,  that  it  was  thought  best 
not  to  disturb  it. 

Now,  as  our  Saviour  was  born  in  the  au- 
tumn of  A.U.  749,  four  years  later  would 
make  our  Christian  era  to  commence  in  A.U. 
753 ;  and,  consequently,  A.D.  30  would  be 
A.U.  783. 


THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR'S  CRUCIFIXION.     257 

To  recapitulate  briefly,  according  to  the 
preceding  evidence,  our  Saviour  was  born  in 
the  autumn  of  A.U.  749,  or  4  B.C. 

He  was  baptized  by  John  in  Jordan,  and 
entered  on  His  public  ministry  in  the  autumn 
of  A.U.  779,  or  A.D.  26,  and  was  crucified  on 
Thursday,  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan,  in  A.U.  783,  or  A.D.  30. 

From  the  evidence  presented,  it  will,  "we 
think,  be  admitted,  that  our  fourth  and  last 
statement  is  correct;  viz.,  that  most  critical 
commentators  confirm  the  statement  we  have 
made,  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  A.D.  30. 
Indeed,  there  may  be  said  to  be  hi  regard  to 
this  a  unanimity  of  opinion. 

We  have  already  quoted  in  proof  of  it, 
Smith,  Robinson,  and  others ;  but  that  there 
may  be  no  question  in  regard  to  it,  we  cite 
also  the  following:  Wieseler  (p.  386,  sq.) 
claims  that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  in  the 
year  30  A.D.,  or  783  from  the  founding  of 
Rome. 

Canon  Farrar  asserts,  in  his  "  Life  of 
Christ,"  that  the  crucifixion  took  place  A.D. 


258     THE  DAY  OF  OUR  SAVIOUR^  CRUCIFIXION. 

30.  This  is  the  opinion  also  of  Fried- 
lieb,  Tischendorf,  Greswell,  Andrew,  Ellicott, 
Lange,  and  indeed  of  almost  every  noted 
commentator. 

From  the  evidence  presented,  and  the  testi- 
mony adduced,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  our  Saviour  was  crucified  A.D.  30,  on 
Thursday ',  the  day  observed  that  year  by  the 
Jews  as  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan. 


APPENDIX. 


See  pp.  16,  17. 

The  early  Christian  churches  in  Asia  ob- 
served the  fourteenth  day  of  Nisan  as  the  day 
of  the  crucifixion,  and  celebrated  Easter  on 
the  third  day  thereafter,  without  regard  to 
what  day  of  the  week  it  might  be.  The  early 
churches  in  the  West,  on  the  contrary,  ob- 
served the  nearest  Sunday  to  the  full  moon  of 
Nisan  as  Easter  Day.  In  consequence  of  this, 
a  severe  dispute  arose  between  them,  and 
Victor  of  Rome  broke  communion  with  the 
Eastern  Church  for  refusing  to  come  to  his 
date  {see  Mosheims  and  other  Church  Histories  ; 
also  Doubling's  "  History  of  Romanism"  chap, 
ii.  p.  32). 

Now,  as  our  Saviour  rose  on  Sunday,  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  and  the  Asiatic  churches 

259 


260  APPENDIX. 

observed  the  third  day  after  the  14th  as  the 
anniversary  of  that  resurrection,  the  evidence 
is  conclusive  that  the  Eastern  churches  be- 
lieved that  He  was  crucified  on  the  14th  of 
Nisan,  and  that  that  day  fell  on  Thursday ; 
for  if  our  Saviour  had  been  crucified  on  Fri- 
day, Sunday,  the  day  of  His  resurrection, 
would  have  been  the  second  day  after:  and 
they  would  have  observed  the  second  day  after 
the  14th,  and  not  the  third,  as  its  anniversary. 
It  is  evident  that  the  Eastern  churches  were 
correct  in  this  belief,  for  the  dispute  in  regard 
to  the  observance  of  Easter  arose  in  the  second 
century ;  and  they  affirmed  that  they  derived 
the  custom  of  observing  the  third  day  after  the 
14th  as  the  anniversary  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, from  the  practice  of  the  apostles  Philip 
and  John ;  and,  it  being  so  near  the  time  of 
the  crucifixion,  they  could  not  have  been  mis- 
taken. Poly  crates,  bishop  of  Ephesus,  as- 
serted, in  his  reply  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome, 
that  it  was  a  custom  which  had  been  handed 
down  to  them  by  their  ancestors.  Eusebius 
informs   us,  "Hist.   Eccles.,"  lib.  iv.  v.,  that 


APPENDIX.  261 

they  based  this  observance  on  a  tradition, 
which  they  claimed  to  have  received  from  the 
apostle  John.  We  mnst  admit  that  this 
claim  was  sincere,  and,  as  they  believed, 
valid;  for  they  were  men  eminent  for  their 
piety,  and  many  of  them  received  the  crown 
of  martyrdom.  It  is  further  evident  that  they 
had  received  this  custom  from  the  apostle 
John,  from  the  indisputable  fact  that  the  ven- 
erable Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  a  disciple 
of  the  apostle  John,  was  prominent  in  the 
controversy,  and  went  to  Rome  to  confer  with 
"  Anicet,  bishop  of  that  see,  upon  the  matter, 
with  a  view  to  terminate  the  warm  disputes 
which  it  had  occasioned." 

He  (Polycarp)  followed  the  custom  of  the 
Eastern  churches  ;  and,  having  been  a  disciple 
of  the  apostle  John,  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt  that  he  observed  it  in  accordance 
with  the  instructions  which  he  had  received 
from  St.  John,  and  with  what  he  knew  to 
have  been  the  practice  of  that  apostle.  (This, 
in  the  absence  of  any  other  testimony,  is  suffi- 
cient to  establish  the  fact  that  our  Saviour  was 


262  APPENDIX. 

crucified  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  Nisan,  and 
that  He  was  crucified  on  Thursday.) 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing,  that  dif- 
ferent opinions  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the 
Saviours  crucifixion  were  held  by  the  Eastern 
and  Western  churches,  in  the  early  part  of 
the  second  century. 


|                        Date  Due                         | 

1           D 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

BS2425.7  .A36 

A  critical  examination  of  the  question 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00029  6410 


